1. 1 Wednesday, 17th June 1998

    2 (The accused entered court)

    3 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

    4 (Open session)

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I ask the

    6 registrar to call out the case number, please?

    7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.

    8 Case number IT-95-13a-T, the Prosecutor versus Slavko

    9 Dokmanovic.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. May I have the

    11 appearances, please? Prosecution?

    12 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours please, my name is

    13 Niemann, and I appear with my colleagues,

    14 Mr. Williamson and Mr. Waespi for the Prosecution.

    15 MR. FILA: Good morning, Your Honours. I am

    16 Toma Fila here with Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Kosic lives

    17 quite some distance away, so he hasn't been able to

    18 reach us in time.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Dokmanovic,

    20 good morning. Can you hear me? Thank you.

    21 Let me start by thanking, on behalf of the

    22 Trial Chamber, both parties for promptly accepting our

    23 suggestions to bring forward the resumption of our

    24 trial. We are really most obliged and very

    25 appreciative of the cooperative attitude of both

  2. 1 parties.

    2 As you know, this will enable us to finish

    3 another trial next Monday when we will be sitting on a

    4 different case, and then we will resume on Tuesday, as

    5 you know.

    6 Now, before we start, let me deal with a few

    7 housekeeping matters. First of all, I hope that

    8 Mr. Fila has seen the urgent request for assistance to

    9 the Republic of Croatia which I immediately --

    10 MR. FILA: And I wish to thank you for it. I

    11 really thank you very much because it worked because my

    12 investigator was able to go to Vukovar yesterday, so I

    13 thank the court for that.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Good. Thank you. It's very

    15 good news because I was prepared even to phone the

    16 Ambassador of Croatia to The Hague, but I see there is

    17 no point now. Excellent. So this proves that the

    18 Croatian authorities are cooperating very well.

    19 Then I would like again to ask the parties

    20 about the various witnesses they would like to call

    21 today. I understand Mr. Fila is calling five witnesses

    22 this morning, probably, or today, five witnesses.

    23 MR. FILA: I will call four witnesses this

    24 morning, but the fifth witness is waiting in the hotel,

    25 so if we finish on time, we can also hear him. Not a

  3. 1 problem at all. At any rate, I will finish today,

    2 maybe not in the morning but for sure in the

    3 afternoon. It doesn't depend on me.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I understand that

    5 you are also calling today the expert witness,

    6 Professor Aleksic. We have received the English

    7 translation of his statement. Very good.

    8 Now, I am not clear about the list of three

    9 witnesses for whom you have enclosed in your document,

    10 the document filed recently, the written statements.

    11 These are Dragisic Mirko, Novakovic, and Tomasevic. I

    12 think we heard those witnesses.

    13 MR. FILA: Yes, but these are not the same

    14 statements. This is what this is all about. Since we

    15 are talking now informally, since I heard that the tape

    16 is being disputed, I heard about that from

    17 Mr. Williamson on the 28th, 29th, and then I read the

    18 statement by Mr. Dzuro, I asked them to provide me with

    19 their copies of the tape, that's what I asked of

    20 Mr. Dragisic and Tomasevic, because they also got the

    21 tapes in 1991, and they provided me with those tapes.

    22 The statements tell you that under oath they stated

    23 that they gave me those tapes, and I am prepared to

    24 give you those tapes whenever you feel like it. It's

    25 the same tape as the master tapes, and these are just

  4. 1 the copies of the tape that you already have as D2.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, but you are not going to

    3 call again those two witnesses?

    4 MR. FILA: No, no, no, no, no. No. Not a

    5 single one of them. There has been a

    6 misunderstanding. Mr. Vasic will testify as to their

    7 statements. This will be in rebuttal of the evidence

    8 provided by the Prosecutor.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. But you said the master

    10 tape. Did you mean to refer to the original copy of

    11 the tape?

    12 MR. FILA: No. The first copy is the copy

    13 that you have, and the expert of the Prosecutor, as I

    14 can see, also stated that. But from that tape, those

    15 two copies were made, and those copies were given to

    16 those two witnesses, but that was in 1991. For us, it

    17 is important to determine that these tapes were shot in

    18 1991 in their present form.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Now, turning now

    20 to the Prosecution. I understand they are going to

    21 call eight witnesses, and some of them are expert

    22 witnesses; namely, Dr. Tabbush, Mr. Herold, Professor

    23 Wagenaar, and Dr. Gudjonsson; is that correct?

    24 MR. NIEMANN: That's right, Your Honour, yes.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you tell us, when do

  5. 1 you intend to call those witnesses? This week or next

    2 week?

    3 MR. NIEMANN: It's anticipated, Your Honours,

    4 that the order that we have to call witnesses will be

    5 as follows: We will call the investigator,

    6 Mr. Vladimir Dzuro, either today or tomorrow, we will

    7 call the expert witness on the trees, Mr. Tabbush,

    8 tomorrow, and then we will call Witness R, we have

    9 sought protection for him, tomorrow as well, and then

    10 next week it's anticipated that we will call

    11 Mr. Herold, Witness S, and Mr. Corwin, and then,

    12 finally, Dr. Wagenaar. Finally, yes, Dr. Gudjonsson.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Thank you. Concerning

    14 the expert witnesses, you may have noticed that the

    15 Defence counsel raised a few issues in particular

    16 concerning the CVs, and I think I agree with Mr. Fila

    17 that, if possible, CVs should be handed both to Defence

    18 counsel and to the court.

    19 MR. NIEMANN: Yes. Well, Your Honours, I

    20 don't know whether you have noticed, but yesterday we

    21 filed a response to that motion.


    23 MR. NIEMANN: In that motion, we provided the

    24 CVs. Mr. Fila has also raised the issue of wanting our

    25 letters to the experts, which we're not prepared to

  6. 1 provide. It's work product. What we are prepared to

    2 provide is the questions we asked the experts and asked

    3 them to opine on, and we have done that in our

    4 response, which Mr. Fila presumably should have or, in

    5 due course, will be served with if he hasn't got it as

    6 yet.

    7 MR. FILA: I did receive it, yes. I received

    8 the response, I received the CVs, not on the 12th or on

    9 the 15th, but yesterday.

    10 I just wanted to turn your attention to the

    11 fact that I stick to the deadlines that you issue in

    12 your orders, and I again received these too late

    13 because on the 15th I was supposed to give my

    14 response.

    15 The reason why I asked for the letter is

    16 because they gave answers with regard to that letter,

    17 so I could have been given the letter because it just

    18 shows what was written to those two experts, Wagenaar

    19 and Gudjonsson. I can't force them, of course, to give

    20 me that, but I think that the court maybe can force

    21 them to give me that because I don't know what the

    22 questions were, yet I received their answers.

    23 MR. NIEMANN: Well, he certainly has the

    24 questions now, and we're in a similar position with

    25 respect to the information about his Professor

  7. 1 Aleksic. We didn't receive any CVs or any of his

    2 report until now either, so we're in the same position.

    3 MR. FILA: No, no.

    4 MR. NIEMANN: And he's calling Dr. Aleksic

    5 today. We just received the CVs, Your Honours. We

    6 provided the reports last week in compliance with the

    7 order, so any suggestion there hasn't been compliance

    8 with the order is rejected.

    9 MR. FILA: No, no. Your Honour, I submitted

    10 everything on time. I was not allowed to provide my

    11 own translations in accordance with the registry

    12 decision. I don't know how many times I have to repeat

    13 that. I submit it as soon as I get it, and I don't

    14 know how long it takes for the translation to be done.

    15 I wanted to do the translations myself, but I wasn't

    16 allowed to do so, so it's not up to me.

    17 MR. NIEMANN: Well, we certainly didn't

    18 receive it, Your Honour. We received it this morning.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: What? The CV?

    20 MR. NIEMANN: No, the report. We still

    21 haven't received the CV.

    22 JUDGE CASSESE: No, sorry, the CV of

    23 Professor Aleksic was next to the document filed on the

    24 15th of June.

    25 MR. NIEMANN: Sorry, yes, the report. We

  8. 1 just received it this morning.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: The report, yes, but I agree

    3 with Mr. Fila, I must say, this is because of the

    4 amount of work of the translation unit. It was handed

    5 in in Serbo Croatian and then it was translated --

    6 actually, it's a draft translation, I read here, by the

    7 translation unit in the Tribunal, who are, of course,

    8 overwhelmed with requests for translation.

    9 But I would not enter into any polemics

    10 because I think, by and large, both parties are

    11 cooperating, and we do appreciate the problems you may

    12 face in some instances.

    13 So the only issue which is probably worth

    14 discussing is whether or not the Prosecutor should

    15 provide both the Defence counsel and the court with the

    16 text of their own requests or letters to Professor

    17 Wagenaar and Gudjonsson. However, since, of course, we

    18 cannot but trust the Prosecutor, if the Prosecutor is

    19 ready to give us the list of questions they actually

    20 put to both experts, I think we should be happy with

    21 that. As long as we know what questions were put to

    22 both experts, we can understand the whole set of issues

    23 much better.

    24 MR. NIEMANN: The questions are fairly

    25 straightforward, Your Honours, and it's not a complex

  9. 1 issue. This is rebuttal evidence, so it's obviously

    2 not going to be expansive, the information we sought,

    3 and as I say, we have provided in our response.

    4 But I think this touches on a very germane

    5 question in relation to the issue of discovery and

    6 responsibilities. I mean, the parties do have a

    7 necessity to investigate and to obtain information, and

    8 it may be that the information is unhelpful or

    9 unnecessary, so there is an exploration process that

    10 goes on both by the Defence and by the Prosecution. It

    11 would be oppressive to request the Defence to provide

    12 work product material in relation to their

    13 correspondence with witnesses. In some jurisdictions,

    14 this is covered by legal professional privilege; in

    15 others, it is covered as work product. Your Honours,

    16 in my submission, certainly it assists all parties for

    17 them to know what was asked. But it's not as though

    18 these witnesses are just some sort of statement

    19 tendered in a vacuum; they're going to be called.

    20 Mr. Fila is quite at liberty to get up and ask

    21 questions. If the professor or the doctor has the

    22 information at hand, he can respond. He can say what

    23 was the nature of correspondence between the parties.

    24 The whole process of cross-examination is designed to

    25 permit this to happen, and it doesn't necessitate

  10. 1 delving into speculative issues which could arise as a

    2 consequence of the investigative process, whereby large

    3 amounts of material are rejected. That just becomes

    4 especially true when it relates to a rebuttal case

    5 because in a rebuttal case you are confining it to a

    6 very, very narrow concept. You may ask a wider,

    7 broader range of questions, but when it comes to the

    8 actual testimony of the witness, you want to

    9 concentrate on what truly represents rebuttal.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. We do agree with the

    11 Prosecution, and I think we will be content with the

    12 list of questions that I understand have already been

    13 submitted to the court and the Defence counsel. We

    14 have not yet received this document which probably was

    15 filed yesterday?

    16 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: But I'm happy to see that

    18 Mr. Fila has got it.

    19 Now, let us now therefore move on and start

    20 with the witnesses, if there are no other matters, with

    21 the witnesses called by the -- yes, Mr. Fila, please?

    22 MR. FILA: You may have noticed, Your

    23 Honours, I also said something else in my motion. In

    24 the system in which I have been acting as a Defence

    25 counsel for 30 years -- it's a long time, but that's

  11. 1 how it is -- the behaviour of the person on trial is

    2 important up to the time when he is acquitted or

    3 convicted; even after that, in the sentencing

    4 proceedings.

    5 I propose that the court should obtain the

    6 information about the behaviour of Mr. Dokmanovic from

    7 the moment of his arrest up until his trial. That

    8 means the medical records from the prison or maybe even

    9 testimony by Mr. McFadden, the warden of the prison.

    10 That's the system in my country. So this is just my

    11 proposal. This is not something that I request.

    12 Because we have had secondhand evidence, expert

    13 witness, Vera Petrovic, said that she had seen the

    14 medical records of Mr. Dokmanovic and saw what was

    15 written in there, but you haven't seen this medical

    16 record.

    17 So if the Trial Chamber deems that this is

    18 necessary, I just wanted to make that suggestion. I

    19 can see that the Prosecutor is not opposed that this

    20 medical record be examined by Your Honours and maybe

    21 even Mr. McFadden may testify here or submit a written

    22 report on the behaviour of Mr. Dokmanovic, on the

    23 conduct of Mr. Dokmanovic. This is just an explanation

    24 of my motion.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila, you

  12. 1 could assist the court by clarifying for what purposes

    2 you are proposing that medical records should be looked

    3 at by the court.

    4 MR. FILA: Because in my country, in the

    5 sentencing proceedings, the fact whether a person has a

    6 previous criminal record, the fact of his conduct,

    7 aggressive conduct in prison, or his health situation,

    8 if he refuses to obey the orders of the guards and so

    9 on or if he behaves in a different manner, this is

    10 something that's important. This is the reason why I

    11 propose this. If you deem it necessary, okay; if not,

    12 okay again.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: You know, this is a delicate

    14 matter because this is an issue which may give rise to

    15 a question of intrusion into the privacy of medical

    16 records, medical data, things which we --

    17 MR. FILA: With the approval, with his

    18 approval and the approval of his Defence, I hereby give

    19 you our consent that his medical record be examined,

    20 just as we gave our consent for Mrs. Petrovic to

    21 examine this record. Otherwise, she wouldn't have been

    22 able to examine the record at all.

    23 But again, I stress, if the court deems it

    24 necessary.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: May I ask the Prosecution

  13. 1 whether they have any views on this particular matter?

    2 MR. NIEMANN: No, Your Honours, except that

    3 it may assist the court more if Mr. Fila was to perhaps

    4 seek the court's assistance in securing this evidence

    5 to be brought before the court if he considers it to be

    6 relevant and would assist in the sentencing process.

    7 It may just be a little awkward otherwise in terms of

    8 leading the evidence from the witness and being

    9 responsible for discussing the issue with the witnesses

    10 that he wants to call. It seems to me that Your

    11 Honours may be better assisted if Mr. Fila is

    12 responsible for these witnesses and perhaps seeks Your

    13 Honours' assistance in securing their attendance.

    14 One of them is a United Nations witness and

    15 is not amenable to examination without special

    16 exemption, I understand, so that needs to be obtained.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: This would be -- are you

    18 referring to --

    19 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. McFadden, I believe, Your

    20 Honour.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: McFadden.

    22 MR. NIEMANN: I understand the situation to

    23 be that way, but I wouldn't like to speak, but I think

    24 there is some restriction on U.N. personnel

    25 testifying. But that can be overcome and, of course,

  14. 1 it just means that steps need to be taken to secure the

    2 approval, I think, of New York, is the process that one

    3 obtains. But it's a little awkward for Your Honours to

    4 take it upon yourselves to handle witnesses and bring

    5 them before the court. You can do it. There is

    6 provisions in the Rules for it. No one says it can't

    7 happen. But it may be better if that responsibility is

    8 left with Mr. Fila, with Your Honours' assistance.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. The court feels that

    10 the best solution would be as follows: We will ask the

    11 medical officer in charge of the prison -- I don't

    12 remember his name -- to produce a medical report.

    13 MR. FILA: Falces.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Dr. Falces, yes, Dr. Falces,

    15 to submit a detailed medical report, in a language

    16 which is accessible to people who are not experts in

    17 medicine, on the physical medical conditions of the

    18 accused. So that we would simply receive this

    19 medical -- the court will request -- it's not for

    20 Mr. Fila -- the court will request the medical officer

    21 of the prison to produce this medical report.

    22 I wonder whether Mr. Fila, as I think I

    23 understood him to say, also wants to have some sort of

    24 report on the behaviour of the accused while in

    25 prison. We could ask Mr. McFadden again to submit a

  15. 1 report on the behaviour of the accused while in

    2 detention. So we would have two written statements

    3 from the two relevant offices.

    4 May I take this opportunity, since we are

    5 talking about evidence which is relevant to the

    6 sentencing, may I turn to the Prosecution and ask them

    7 to clarify whether two of their witnesses, namely,

    8 these are U.N. civil servants, I think, Mr. Corwin and

    9 Witness S, who are going to report or testify on the

    10 attitude of the accused in a period subsequent to the

    11 relevant date, I mean, the crucial date, '91; namely,

    12 the period '93-'94 or '94-'95, whether this evidence

    13 is relevant in the view of the Prosecution again for

    14 sentencing purposes, because otherwise it would not be

    15 material.

    16 MR. NIEMANN: Of course, Your Honours. Is

    17 Your Honour directing your question to the fact of it

    18 being subsequent or is Your Honour --

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    20 MR. NIEMANN: I see. Yes. Your Honours, in

    21 our submission, evidence of attitudes and views on

    22 certain events is relevant subsequently if it's the

    23 views held by a person and, in our submission, is

    24 admissible. So it's not, when talking of general

    25 character evidence and on questions of sentencing, it's

  16. 1 not excluded merely because it's subsequent. There are

    2 bases upon which subsequent conduct are admissible.

    3 It's not always admissible, but it can be depending

    4 upon the character of the evidence itself, such as

    5 views held, if a person holds a particular political

    6 belief or a particular religious belief or whatever, an

    7 attitude to a certain thing. Those are views that can

    8 be held for a lifetime, and someone can come along at a

    9 point and give evidence of that.

    10 This evidence won't be evidence in a vacuum

    11 because there will be other evidence from another

    12 witness about similar views held prior to the event, so

    13 it will, in effect, show a link, continuity between the

    14 two.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: All right.

    16 MR. NIEMANN: So that is how it will become

    17 admissible.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: It's not only relevant for

    19 sentencing purposes but to cover the whole period. I

    20 mean, the attitude both before '91, or in '91 and after

    21 '91.

    22 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, I will say that it was a

    23 continuation of that.

    24 JUDGE MAY: It shows presumably, you would

    25 say, a consistency --

  17. 1 MR. NIEMANN: Yes.

    2 JUDGE MAY: -- Mr. Niemann, in attitude.

    3 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Thank you. So we

    5 will then later on issue these two requests to the two

    6 offices I mentioned before, and we may now start with

    7 the witnesses Mr. Fila is calling today.

    8 I wonder whether the registry --

    9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

    10 When you indicated that you had put in the request, you

    11 were referring to Mr. McFadden and the doctor?

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    13 MR. WILLIAMSON: I apologise. I thought you

    14 were talking about requesting for these witnesses

    15 authorisation from New York to testify, and we have

    16 already done that. I apologise.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. So I wonder

    18 whether the registry -- may I have the first witness

    19 brought in?

    20 (The witness entered court)

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning.

    22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you please make the

    24 solemn declaration?

    25 THE WITNESS: I hereby solemnly declare that

  18. 1 I shall speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing

    2 but the truth.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be

    4 seated.

    5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


    7 Examined by Mr. Fila:

    8 Q. Mr. Knezevic, I hope you feel comfortable.

    9 This is your second time here.

    10 A. I'm not a debutante, thanks.

    11 Q. Did you, on the 10th of June, '98, give a

    12 statement to my investigator, Mr. Vasic?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Will you see if this is the statement?

    15 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D149;

    16 English translation, D149A.

    17 MR. FILA: If no one has anything against it,

    18 I hope that you will accept this as Exhibit number

    19 149D.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: What was it?

    21 MR. FILA:

    22 Q. Mr. Knezevic --

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Was it signed?

    24 MR. FILA:

    25 Q. Will you repeat, have you recognised this

  19. 1 signature? Is that your statement?

    2 A. I declare that I have recognised my own

    3 signature, and the text is based on the statement I

    4 gave to Mr. Vasic.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: So you would tender this

    6 document into evidence?

    7 MR. FILA: Yes.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether the

    9 Prosecution has any objection?

    10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we have not

    11 seen this previously, so this is the first time we were

    12 looking at it. If we could have a moment just to go

    13 through it?

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Meanwhile, you may

    15 start.

    16 MR. FILA:

    17 Q. Mr. Knezevic, you have known Slavko

    18 Dokmanovic since when and how well?

    19 A. I have known Slavko Dokmanovic since mid

    20 80's. I believe I know him rather well because our

    21 acquaintance has been growing firmer until a few years

    22 ago over the whole period.

    23 Q. In one period since 1991, you have together

    24 been ministers in the government of, what's his name,

    25 the Serbian district?

  20. 1 A. Yes. In '91, we have been together in the

    2 cabinet of the Serbian government of Baranja, and

    3 Western Srem. I was Minister of Education and

    4 Dokmanovic was Minister of Agriculture.

    5 Q. What was he like to cooperate with?

    6 A. Mr. Dokmanovic, as Minister of Agriculture,

    7 worked for better conditions of living in the

    8 circumstances he was in. We did not behave as

    9 ministers. We behaved as public persons. We worked

    10 for harvesting. We worked for the well-being of the

    11 people.

    12 Q. How was he elected to the government? How

    13 did he come about -- how did it come about that he was

    14 a minister? How was he elected to the Serbian

    15 district? Please always wait ten seconds before your

    16 answer.

    17 How did it come that Slavko Dokmanovic was

    18 elected minister in that government?

    19 A. All of us were elected ministers. All of us

    20 were elected ministers, I was saying, based on the

    21 proposal of people from our local communities, that is,

    22 municipalities, on a higher level, speaking in terms of

    23 the hierarchy of the former Republic of Croatia.

    24 Q. What kind of man was Slavko Dokmanovic and

    25 why was he proposed to that post?

  21. 1 A. Slavko Dokmanovic was a very well-renowned

    2 man in his area on the territory of the municipality of

    3 Vukovar, on the entire territory of the Vukovar Bosnian

    4 Baranja region, Osijek region. He has, for many years,

    5 been active in sports organisations, more specifically,

    6 soccer organisations, and that's where I know him from

    7 because I took part in the same activities in the

    8 sports organisations and the soccer club.

    9 He was known as a generous man in his

    10 environment. He cared very much for sports ethics and

    11 morals. I visited with him frequently, and I know this

    12 well, and you should be aware of the fact that a

    13 countryside like Trpinja is getting more urbanised, and

    14 construction is going on widely. He was head of

    15 department, head of many -- Mayor and, as such,

    16 overlooked construction activities.

    17 Slavko Dokmanovic was generous, sincere,

    18 honourable, free man, a courageous man who, in those

    19 difficult times when we saw our state fall about, found

    20 himself in the service of people who maintained that it

    21 was best to keep things as they were.

    22 Q. What was he in the municipality of Vukovar?

    23 A. He was president of the assembly, of the

    24 municipal assembly of Vukovar, but the mass media

    25 sometimes called him Mayor.

  22. 1 Q. Then on the 19th of November, '91, there was

    2 a session of government in Erdut. On the following

    3 day, was a decision made that you should meet in

    4 Vukovar?

    5 A. Yes. Mr. Goran Hadzic, who then acted as

    6 president of the government of the Serbian region of

    7 Vukovar, Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem invited all of

    8 us present to meet in Vukovar on the 19th of October.

    9 Q. Did you go?

    10 A. No, I didn't go because those were still

    11 difficult times, and one took a great risk travelling

    12 in all directions because from Baranja, I had to cross

    13 the territory of then SFRY, passing barricades, et

    14 cetera, so I only followed those summons which I

    15 couldn't avoid. I considered that particular

    16 invitation to be formal and I didn't go.

    17 Q. Later, that government that you served on

    18 ceased to exist, and a new government of the republic

    19 of Srpska Krajina was established. Were you a minister

    20 in that government too?

    21 A. Yes, I was. I was Minister of Education.

    22 Q. Was Slavko Dokmanovic on that government too?

    23 A. Slavko Dokmanovic was not on the government

    24 of the Republic of Srpska Krajina because at that time,

    25 I don't know very well myself, I don't know why he

  23. 1 wasn't, but I later, making inquiries, found out that

    2 Mr. Dokmanovic did not have the quality to meet the

    3 basic criteria that had to be met for appointments to

    4 the government of Srpska Krajina; and that criterion

    5 was nationalism. While Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic had

    6 beliefs which were met with a certain protest in wider

    7 masses of the people, because he did not act, in their

    8 view, as an honourable, courageous Serb, that he must,

    9 in their view, have held other beliefs. And he was, as

    10 such, not qualified to act as a minister of that

    11 government.

    12 Q. Does that mean that he was left out because

    13 he was a bad minister, but because somebody thought he

    14 was a bad Serb?

    15 A. I couldn't -- I'm sorry. I have to agree

    16 with your opinion. I must say that Mr. Dokmanovic, in

    17 the belief of many, really many, and they were 282, he

    18 was not a good Serb and he did not meet their

    19 requirements of that environment, because he was a

    20 compromising man. He was not convenient at that time.

    21 He did not meet their interests.

    22 Q. How did it come about that he became

    23 president of the municipal assembly in 1994?

    24 A. In 1992, we saw certain political changes on

    25 the territory of the Republic of Srpska Krajina,

  24. 1 because somewhere in March or April, UNPROFOR arrived

    2 to Yugoslavia. In 1994 and '95, UNPROFOR has already

    3 played its role and then UNTAES arrives. Mr. Slavko

    4 Dokmanovic was, by then, used up and rejected.

    5 And then with another change in the political

    6 current, things that Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic had believed

    7 in throughout come to the forefront, and Mr. Slavko

    8 Dokmanovic was, at that time, politically dead and

    9 resigned. But at that time, with the change of the

    10 political current, he was simply, again, proposed,

    11 elected, and forced to take part in the political life,

    12 at one point, as a deputy to the assembly.

    13 Q. Did he take part in negotiations in Vukovar?

    14 A. He was forever a loser. He did all the hard

    15 work, and whenever it was award-winning time,

    16 Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic tended to be forgotten.

    17 Q. At the negotiations in Erdut, was he reputed

    18 as an uncompromising, hardline Serb?

    19 A. No, Mr. Dokmanovic was known at negotiations

    20 in Erdut as a moderate, a very moderated man, indeed.

    21 I can maintain this with every conviction because I

    22 called him in a friendly manner many times at home.

    23 Q. So why was he removed from the post of Mayor

    24 in '96?

    25 A. Why? Well, listen, I should say that

  25. 1 radicals awoke again, and because he was not a radical,

    2 he was removed.

    3 Q. Was he criticised in Borovo newspapers for

    4 his participation in the peace making process?

    5 A. Oh, yes, he was. He was criticised not only

    6 in the newspapers, but also on the local radio,

    7 television. He was reviled in personal attacks of

    8 individual people.

    9 Q. Because you say he was a bad Serb?

    10 A. Yes, he was criticised as a bad Serb and

    11 because his reactions and his opinions seemed to

    12 indicate that he would like to see Serbia again in the

    13 hands of Croatia.

    14 Q. You were interrogated before on account of

    15 Mr. Dokmanovic. But I would like to ask now, why did

    16 he invite you to come with him and what was the purpose

    17 of his trip?

    18 A. Well, you know, there is inside us something

    19 that can be seen in the eyes, and I was on rather good

    20 terms with Mr. Dokmanovic for over 15 years, and our

    21 eyes said that we are facing a moment of truth. And

    22 the truth was that Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic believed those

    23 who said that we were going to Vukovar for the purpose

    24 of selling Serbian property in the region. He invited

    25 me and served me those same untruths, to the effect

  26. 1 that we were going to serve Serbian interests in

    2 Barinja.

    3 Q. Why?

    4 A. Because we have the same mindset. I do what

    5 I say I will do. I keep my word.

    6 Q. What I wanted to say is, did Mr. Dokmanovic

    7 invite you to save your own property or to save

    8 everybody's property?

    9 A. Everybody's property, of course.

    10 Q. And one last question, over 1991, including

    11 that session of the government in Erdut and later, do

    12 you recollect what he was wearing?

    13 A. Mr. Dokmanovic appeared, as all of us, in

    14 various combinations of clothing. Most of all, he

    15 appeared in a multi-coloured hunting jacket with

    16 trousers, but he also wore civilian clothing, because

    17 you must understand, you must remember, that we were

    18 poor at that time. Hardly anyone wore suits and ties.

    19 It was a matter of our customs and ethics. We acted as

    20 everybody did. People wore soldiers' uniforms,

    21 whatever they could lay their hands on, and we dressed

    22 as our financial -- as we could afford.

    23 Q. I mean to say, did he dress as a reserve

    24 officer?

    25 A. No, I know that for certain. He was a simple

  27. 1 soldier. He did not belong to any army unit, not even

    2 in peace making, not even in piece time.

    3 MR. FILA: I beg to tender this as evidence.

    4 I have no other comments.

    5 MR. NIEMANN: No objections, Your Honour.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    7 Cross-examined by Mr. Niemann:

    8 Q. Mr. Knezevic, did you ever see Mr. Dokmanovic

    9 in a JNA reservist uniform?

    10 A. No.

    11 Q. Did you ever know of him to travel around

    12 with uniformed people who were guarding him or working

    13 with him?

    14 A. I was not aware of that, nor had I seen it,

    15 because Mr. Dokmanovic travelled alone. He did not

    16 have any escort or bodyguards.

    17 Q. I'm really speaking of the period after the

    18 conclusion of the war in Vukovar, so after November of

    19 1991. You didn't see anything then?

    20 A. I'm trying to concentrate, but I fail to

    21 understand your question. I saw Mr. Dokmanovic but he

    22 was not surrounded with armed and uniformed people.

    23 Q. Fair enough, not that you saw, at least?

    24 A. I used to see him but not surrounded under

    25 armed escort. We saw each other at sessions, at least

  28. 1 a couple of times each month, of course.

    2 Q. Fair enough. Again, in the period following

    3 the fall of Vukovar, did you ever know of

    4 Mr. Dokmanovic to visit JNA prison facilities in

    5 Serbia, in the Republic of Serbia?

    6 A. No, I did not know about that, nor had we

    7 ever discussed it.

    8 Q. Now, you say that he certainly didn't have

    9 the view of an uncompromising, hardline Serb. Just so

    10 that we can get that clear, what would you consider to

    11 be an uncompromising, hardline Serb? Can you tell us

    12 what a person would be, the sort of views a person

    13 would hold if he could be fitted with that description,

    14 so far as you're concerned?

    15 A. Well, if we analyse such a person, I could

    16 give you certain characteristics of persons who could

    17 fit into that category, and I have met a couple of

    18 them. First of all, it's the category of people who

    19 were in favour of a genocide against the Croatian

    20 population in the Serbian region and of their

    21 expulsion. Secondly, these are the people who looted,

    22 burned the property, and so on. Thirdly, these are the

    23 people who refused to obey the dictates of the ethics

    24 and who refused to obey the dictates of the government

    25 that was being set up in this area; and also, fourth,

  29. 1 those people who tried to reject all the efforts of the

    2 international community designed to reduce the tensions

    3 and to introduce law and order and civilisation in the

    4 area; fifth, all those people who simply tried to act

    5 violently, who never shave, who look slovenly, people

    6 who drink a lot of alcohol, who are unreasonable.

    7 I can give you some other criteria, but these

    8 are the basic criteria -- these are the people who talk

    9 about the greater Serbia, and Serbia can only be as big

    10 as it is; those people who refuse any kind of

    11 discussion, negotiations; those people who act

    12 arbitrarily. And Mr. Dokmanovic did not meet those

    13 criteria. These were not the criteria that he used in

    14 assessing the situation in the field.

    15 Q. Are you saying, by that, that Mr. Dokmanovic

    16 would be the sort of person who would welcome the

    17 intervention of the United Nations in this very

    18 troubled region of the world?

    19 A. All of us welcomed the intervention of the

    20 United Nations, but I don't know what you mean, the

    21 intervention. When we're talking about the military

    22 intervention, that is not something that we welcomed,

    23 but the political intervention, the pressures and the

    24 negotiations, this is something that we all welcomed.

    25 And Mr. Dokmanovic was one of the leaders of this kind

  30. 1 of political attitudes.

    2 Q. Did he always have this view or was this

    3 something that he subsequently developed?

    4 A. Well, there's a proverb which says that only

    5 a stupid man never changes his opinion. In the 90's

    6 when the euphoria of one nationalism began, it caused

    7 the second euphoria of another nation, and we really

    8 had it good in Yugoslavia.

    9 In 1990 and 1991, I was also exposed to

    10 pressures and to threats, and I was simply put in a

    11 very specific situation. For instance, a Croatian

    12 policeman killed my dog in my own house. It was a

    13 well-trained Rottweiler. I don't have to tell you what

    14 it means.

    15 Q. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean

    16 by that, but I think that you said in your evidence

    17 that Mr. Dokmanovic was, more or less, considered a bad

    18 Serb because he didn't hold strong views and, in fact,

    19 he favoured living together with the Croatian people;

    20 is that true?

    21 A. Yes, Mr. Dokmanovic did not have anything

    22 against the Croatian people. In his own home,

    23 Mr. Dokmanovic even had a Croat veterinarian. He died

    24 of a heart attack after the arrest of Mr. Dokmanovic.

    25 He lived in his house, in Mr. Dokmanovic's house, quite

  31. 1 normally. He associated with Croats. We all did. We

    2 were -- we used to be best men at each other's

    3 weddings, at birthdays, and so on, a lot of

    4 celebrations. He was a member of the group who was sad

    5 because of this breakup. There were Croats who shared

    6 our views. Unfortunately, we were in the minority.

    7 Q. Was he advocating that the Croats and the

    8 Serbs should live together prior to the war in Vukovar,

    9 that is, prior to August, September, October, November

    10 of 1991? Was Mr. Dokmanovic advocating that then?

    11 A. Absolutely he advocated this idea. This idea

    12 was something that was not in favour of the Croat

    13 nationalists who threatened him physically. That was

    14 the reason why he was disqualified because he was

    15 advocating this option of unity, co-existence.

    16 Mr. Mercep and his cohort wanted to physically

    17 eliminate him, I think, since May, since the events in

    18 Borovo.

    19 As far as I can remember, Mr. Dokmanovic did

    20 not go to Vukovar at all because he did not dare,

    21 afraid of his physical safety.

    22 Q. And the medium by which he conveyed his

    23 moderate views, I take it that included the radio,

    24 television, and the newspapers; is that right?

    25 A. Yes.

  32. 1 Q. Did he often appear on the radio and

    2 television, from what you can remember, at that time?

    3 I'm talking about mid 1991, July of 1991; did you ever

    4 speak him on radio or television at that time?

    5 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I could not give

    6 you a specific answer. It was a long time ago and

    7 conditions were very bad at that time. And power cuts

    8 often happened, and local TV and radio stations were

    9 not in existence at that time in July. They appeared

    10 later. We had only some hand radio systems, and some

    11 people were able to receive that and some weren't.

    12 Later on, with the aid of UNPROFOR and the

    13 international community, the local media developed.

    14 Q. Would it surprise you if I said to you that

    15 there is a record being taken down of a radio broadcast

    16 from Belgrade through the Belgrade Tanjug agency where

    17 Mr. Dokmanovic spoke of the arrival of the Blue Helmets

    18 which, I think you'll agree with me, means the United

    19 Nations, in Yugoslavia as being unacceptable; do you

    20 remember that?

    21 A. I can't remember that. I can't remember that

    22 radio programme.

    23 MR. FILA: Your Honours, please, I would like

    24 to be able to see what is being discussed. This piece

    25 of evidence has not been tendered. If it exists, let

  33. 1 him show it here. I don't know what you're talking

    2 about. If you have a copy, please provide me with a

    3 copy, and then you can talk about it.

    4 MR. NIEMANN: I have a copy for Your Honours

    5 and a copy for Mr. Dokmanovic. The information I have

    6 is in the English language, though, Your Honours.

    7 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked 213.

    8 MR. NIEMANN:

    9 Q. I don't know whether that will help you very

    10 much, Mr. Knezevic. It's in the English language, but

    11 it's a report that's written of a radio broadcast in

    12 30th July, 1991. It doesn't matter, though, if you

    13 can't, because I will just take you through what is

    14 said here and see whether or not you say that's

    15 consistent with what --

    16 MR. FILA: Objection, Your Honour. You do

    17 not allow newspaper articles to be tendered. I don't

    18 know who said that, when this was written. I would

    19 like Mr. Niemann to bring the tape of the broadcast so

    20 that we can hear it. When I tendered newspaper

    21 articles about Mr. Berkovic's statements after the

    22 trial, that's not okay, but now I have some kind of

    23 report. I don't know who made this.

    24 A. In July, UNPROFOR was not discussed at all.

    25 UNPROFOR began to be discussed in December and January.

  34. 1 MR. FILA: And please have a look at the

    2 title. It says that the Belgrade Mayor rejects the

    3 proposal of the U.N. Blue Helmets' arrival. I don't

    4 know if Mr. Dokmanovic has become the Mayor of

    5 Belgrade, whether Mr. Niemann upgraded him to that

    6 title. I can't accept this.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Niemann, can you please

    8 clarify the whole situation?

    9 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, I'm questioning the

    10 witness on the document, Your Honour. The evidence

    11 that has been led in chief relates to a number of

    12 articles -- the witness said that he recalls

    13 Mr. Dokmanovic espousing moderate views on the medium

    14 of radio and television, if I recall his evidence in

    15 chief correctly, and that he obviously also spoke to

    16 him himself.

    17 This is a document which purports to be a

    18 record of a radio broadcast from Belgrade. I'm merely

    19 putting it to the witness to ask him whether or not

    20 it's consistent with his understanding of what

    21 Mr. Dokmanovic was doing at the relevant time, Your

    22 Honours. I haven't sought to tender it as yet.

    23 MR. FILA: Your Honours --

    24 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Fila called for it, and I

    25 gave it to him, but at no stage have I sought to tender

  35. 1 it, Your Honour. I'm merely questioning the witness

    2 about it.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: You're simply making

    4 reference to --

    5 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I don't ask for this

    6 to be shown to the witness. The question was whether

    7 he heard about a programme. I don't know if that

    8 programme exists at all. This is completely

    9 irrelevant. This document is irrelevant.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, it's not

    11 irrelevant. I mean, I understand the Prosecution is

    12 asking the witness whether --

    13 MR. FILA: The question is okay, but this is

    14 not okay. The document is not okay.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: I mean, you asked for this

    16 document. Mr. Niemann was going, I think, to summarise

    17 the news reported in this foreign broadcast information

    18 service report to see whether the witness was aware

    19 that allegedly Tanjug, the agency, the news agency

    20 Tanjug from Belgrade, issued such a report. So don't

    21 overemphasise the importance of this report.

    22 MR. FILA: The question that Mr. Niemann

    23 posed contained a statement whether the witness would

    24 be surprised if he heard whether this statement was

    25 given on the radio. You cannot tell this from this

  36. 1 piece of paper. Let the tape be brought into court,

    2 and then I will allow this. The question was not

    3 whether the witness has heard a broadcast. This is an

    4 admissible question, that's a legitimate question. But

    5 Mr. Niemann claims, states that this broadcast existed,

    6 that the Belgrade mayor was against the arrival of the

    7 blue helmets.

    8 MR. NIEMANN: I made no such claim at all,

    9 Your Honour, and I resent being misrepresented by

    10 Mr. Fila in this way. I am merely asking the witness

    11 whether he's aware of it and I am merely asking the

    12 witness to comment on it. Now, he's free to do and say

    13 what he likes, and at no stage have I sought to

    14 continue it as yet, and I would further add that I am

    15 somewhat surprised that Mr. Fila is talking about what

    16 he will allow into evidence and what he won't. It's

    17 not a matter for Mr. Fila as to what goes into

    18 evidence.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Of course. Yes, Mr. Niemann,

    20 you may proceed.

    21 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.

    22 Q. Now, Mr. Knezevic, did you ever hear a radio

    23 broadcast where Mr. Dokmanovic was interviewed and he

    24 expressed a view that in their final decision -- it's

    25 their final decision not to live any longer either in

  37. 1 the Republic of Croatia or together with Croats? Did

    2 you ever hear him express a view like that over the

    3 radio?

    4 A. No, I never heard such views being expressed

    5 either in the media or in our private conversations,

    6 and let me continue in the answer to your question

    7 regarding this broadcast.

    8 In July 1991, in the territory of Serbian

    9 district of Slovonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, we did

    10 not know about UNPROFOR and the blue helmets. So this

    11 is impossible. Only in November, December, and January

    12 we started to discuss officially the arrival of the

    13 blue helmets and the Vance Plan. This is too early.

    14 The United Nations still treat the whole situation

    15 rather indifferently at that time.

    16 Q. So your answer to my question is you didn't

    17 hear this.

    18 You're not in a position, however, to deny

    19 that this actually took place, this broadcast, or that

    20 Mr. Dokmanovic said these matters?

    21 A. I already said I haven't heard any such

    22 thing, and I don't believe it's possible, because at

    23 that time, such a term, "blue helmets," did not even

    24 exist. We never knew at that time that blue helmets

    25 were going to be associated with the UNPROFOR and the

  38. 1 United Nations. Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic never spoke

    2 about that, not even in our closed circle of friends.

    3 Q. And you never heard of any proposal by the

    4 European -- the EC monitors, that a peacekeeping force

    5 should be deployed in the area? You never heard

    6 anything about that as early as July?

    7 A. No. Later, yes.

    8 Q. Are you saying that the EC never proposed

    9 that a peacekeeping force should be operational in the

    10 area in July, or is it just that you didn't hear it?

    11 A. I simply didn't hear that. Perhaps as a

    12 result of power cuts which I referred to earlier. I

    13 was constantly travelling cross-country, listening to

    14 the radio in small transistors, but in July, I had

    15 never heard of that, because in July, in our Baranja,

    16 there was no war. The SFRY still existed as a State.

    17 MR. NIEMANN: I have no further questions,

    18 Your Honour. Might the document be marked for

    19 identification, Your Honour?

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Only for identification

    21 purposes, P213.

    22 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: It is only for identification

    24 purposes. We can keep it, but not as evidence, as an

    25 exhibit.

  39. 1 Mr. Fila, any re-examination?

    2 MR. FILA: No. Thank you very much.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. May I ask two

    4 minor questions? You may clarify, first of all, a

    5 question put by Mr. Fila to you and, actually, your

    6 answer more than -- the question, according to the

    7 transcript, Mr. Fila put to you was: "Did

    8 Mr. Dokmanovic dress as a reserve officer?" And I see

    9 that you replied: "Dokmanovic was a simple soldier."

    10 Now, could you please clarify what you mean

    11 by saying that Dokmanovic was a simple soldier?

    12 A. Slavko Dokmanovic, as all citizens of the

    13 SFRY, in view of his duties, was compelled to serve in

    14 the army. All psychologically and physically sane and

    15 healthy men served in the army. Everybody in different

    16 units. He was not a reservist officer and he never had

    17 a rank. I, for instance, graduated from a reservist

    18 officer school, and I have the rank of JNA officer.

    19 Mr. Dokmanovic was a simple soldier. I don't

    20 know whether in the infantry or the navy or elsewhere.

    21 I don't know.

    22 But as for uniforms, I say again, there is a

    23 difference in the uniform of a soldier from that of an

    24 officer, the quality of material, et cetera; and as for

    25 Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic's dress, we even joked about his

  40. 1 hunting uniform because he was then -- we teased him

    2 then, "You are a President and you have the better

    3 dress," et cetera.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: I'm sorry to keep insisting

    5 on my question, but when you say he was a simple

    6 soldier, did you mean to say that he was a simple

    7 soldier in the Territorial Defence or as a reservist?

    8 You were a JNA officer, as a reservist, I think, did

    9 you say?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Whereas Mr. Dokmanovic,

    12 unlike you, was a simple soldier, not an officer, but

    13 again as a reservist. This is what you said?

    14 A. I'm trying to explain that we all belonged,

    15 in a way, to the army, but in the post of Minister of

    16 Agriculture, Education, you cannot be an army man at

    17 the same time. Mr. Dokmanovic could not have belonged

    18 to any army unit of the JNA. On the territory,

    19 everything was under JNA control, even the organisation

    20 of civilian life.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, but we have been told by

    22 quite a few witnesses that in addition to the army, the

    23 JNA, there was a Territorial Defence and there were

    24 reservists --

    25 A. Yes, yes.

  41. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: So what, therefore, did

    2 Mr. Dokmanovic belong? To the reservists or to the --

    3 A. As a healthy man, he belonged, as we all did,

    4 to one of three army formations: the navy -- JNA,

    5 police, and the Territorial Defence. In that sense, we

    6 all belonged to the Territorial Defence. We were on

    7 the records as such.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. And then this is

    9 a different question. I understand that you were

    10 Minister of Education serving on the same government as

    11 Mr. Dokmanovic. Now, in this capacity, what clothes

    12 did you used to wear in that particular period,

    13 between, say, September '91 and January or February

    14 '92? Did you used to wear civilian clothes or,

    15 instead, military clothes?

    16 A. That depended on the purpose and tasks to be

    17 achieved on the specific day. For instance, if I was

    18 on the territory of Baranja, I dressed simply so as not

    19 to stand out in the masses. I never wore a suit and

    20 tie. But if I went in the direction of Vukovar or

    21 further, towards the municipality of Erdut, which came

    22 next along the way, I wore a so-called camouflage

    23 uniform. I believe we all know that they could be

    24 bought in shops. I mean, the overalls, because they

    25 were very comfortable, you could sleep in them, and

  42. 1 then they eased passage through the checkpoints held by

    2 the army; we were more easily identified and

    3 recognised. We passed more easily and reached our

    4 destination more quickly.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: If I understood you

    6 correctly, therefore, depending upon the area, the

    7 territory where you were going and/or where you found

    8 yourself or depending upon the tasks you were

    9 performing, you used to wear either civilian clothes or

    10 military uniform; and in the area of Vukovar and Erdut,

    11 you tended to put on a military uniform?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: For which particular

    14 purposes? Just so that you could go through

    15 checkpoints more easily?

    16 A. Yes. Well, the first purpose was to overcome

    17 the obstacles more quickly, and then we had to go for

    18 two or three days with power cuts. We had to sleep in

    19 the car very often.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I wonder whether

    21 there are any questions arising out of my own

    22 questions? No? Is there any objection to the witness

    23 being released?

    24 MR. NIEMANN: No.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Thank you so much

  43. 1 for coming and giving evidence in court. You may now

    2 be released. Thank you.

    3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

    4 (The witness withdrew)

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, as you know,

    6 normally we take a break around 11.00. Do you think it

    7 is better for us to rise now and reconvene in 20

    8 minutes so that we don't interrupt their evidence?

    9 MR. FILA: As you please, Your Honour. Just

    10 an apology to you and the Prosecutor. I did not pick

    11 up the statements from the following three witnesses.

    12 I thought it made no sense. It was a family

    13 relationship. I apologise.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: You don't need to apologise.

    15 It's quite obvious that there was no point in

    16 submitting a statement because they are going to report

    17 about his character, personality, and so on.

    18 But again, do you think it is better, because

    19 I think it is better for us to stop now, and so we

    20 reconvene in 20 minutes.

    21 --- Recess taken at 10.51 a.m.

    22 --- On resuming at 11.17 a.m.

    23 (The witness entered court)

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I ask you

    25 to stand and read the solemn declaration?

  44. 1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I shall

    2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

    3 truth.


    5 Examined by Mr. Fila:

    6 Q. Mrs. Dokmanovic, Mr. Dokmanovic is your

    7 husband?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. You have two children?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. And two grandchildren?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. And another grandchild on the way?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. It's not easy for me also to be asking you

    16 these questions, but this is necessary. Could you

    17 please describe how you two met, how you got married?

    18 A. Well, we practically know each other since we

    19 were seven. Slavko and I are of the same age and we

    20 were born in the same village where we lived. We went

    21 together to the first grade of primary school, since we

    22 were seven, and we were throughout, the eighth year

    23 primary school.

    24 After that, we went on to Vukovar, to high

    25 school. I went to the higher economic school and he

  45. 1 went to the Lise (phoen). Then we went on to Osijek

    2 for university studies, I of economy and he of

    3 agriculture.

    4 In the second year of high school, we started

    5 dating, and we married in '69.

    6 Q. What do your children do?

    7 A. Our children are adults. They have their own

    8 families and their own children. Our son and daughter

    9 graduated from high school and work in the customs

    10 [translation interrupted] --

    11 Q. You all live together?

    12 A. Yes, we do. We now live in Sombor in a

    13 rented house since 1996.

    14 Q. You and Mr. Dokmanovic, you are refugees?

    15 You have the status of refugees?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. Can you please describe, what is he like as a

    18 husband? Did you have any problems with him during

    19 your long life together?

    20 A. We have been married for 29 years, we married

    21 young, and I can say that I have had a very good

    22 marriage, a wonderful husband, a good father, a true

    23 family man for whom the family was always first and

    24 foremost, above everything else. He always tried to

    25 spend as much time as he could with us. We are always

  46. 1 together with our grandchildren, with our friends,

    2 either in our own house or in the friends' house. He

    3 has always had a big heart. He has always liked to

    4 help people whenever he could.

    5 For instance, he always lent a hand to people

    6 in the same profession. I am an economist and my

    7 husband is in agriculture, and people often ask him to

    8 lend a hand. Trpinja is an area where people are

    9 mostly engaged in agriculture. He has always been

    10 willing to help. Whenever people started harvesting

    11 or sowing, he lent them assistance with ...

    12 [translation interrupted]

    13 Q. Your friends, were they exclusively Serbs, or

    14 did you also have friends among other ethnic

    15 communities?

    16 A. No, the lists of them were Serbs.

    17 Q. Can you please tell us, during this trial, it

    18 has cropped up, your relationship with the family

    19 Vodicka?

    20 A. Yes, gladly, although it is very difficult

    21 for me to speak about it.

    22 Q. Please try to collect yourself. This is not

    23 easy for any of us here.

    24 A. I apologise. Well, we have known one another

    25 since the '70s. I met Jovanka in '72, on the second

  47. 1 birthday of our daughter, because she then married

    2 Zlatko and came from Sarajevo to Trpinja. Both of them

    3 are veterinarian doctors. They got jobs in Trpinja.

    4 Zlatko is a Croatian and Jovanka is a Serbian from

    5 Herzegovina. Zlatko, since he was on a fellowship of

    6 the veterinarian station in Vukovar, after graduating

    7 from the university and his army service, his first job

    8 was in Trpinja.

    9 Q. To avoid any problems, please tell me,

    10 Mr. Vodicka was a Croat but his mother was a German and

    11 his mother a Czech (sic). How was he a Croat then?

    12 What did you want to say by saying that he was a

    13 Croat? Did he claim that he was a Croat? Was he a

    14 Catholic?

    15 A. He was a Catholic.

    16 Q. He declared himself as a Croat. Please

    17 continue.

    18 A. Yes, he did. And as I said, his first job

    19 was in Trpinja as a veterinarian, and his duty was to

    20 go to call on houses and treat cattle, and that's how

    21 he came to our house. Zlatko and my husband made

    22 friends. At that time, Zlatko was still not married.

    23 He often came to us for supper, for lunch, and we made

    24 friends. I believe it was in '71 when he first came,

    25 and since '72, he has been with Jovanka. We were good

  48. 1 friends and our children were inseparable. Our

    2 children are of the same age. The went to the same

    3 school. Later they moved to Vukovar, and we remained

    4 in Trpinja, in our house, but we kept regularly seeing

    5 each other almost every day.

    6 Q. So these events that we are discussing here

    7 came -- did Zlatko Vodicka come and where did he come

    8 from in October?

    9 A. He came in the month of October and one -- it

    10 was one evening. He came with Slavko. He said he had

    11 come out of Ilok, looked for Slavko, and together with

    12 him he came to our house, and he remained with us for

    13 three weeks until the liberation of Vukovar.

    14 Q. That's when he left?

    15 A. Yes. He, until recently, worked in Trpinja

    16 before the war for about 20 years, and somewhere in the

    17 village, he heard on the radio that Mitnica was

    18 liberated and that people from Mitnica would be

    19 evacuated, I don't know where, some to Zagreb, some to

    20 other parts, and since his wife remained at home, he

    21 went to look for her.

    22 Q. Mitnica was a part of Vukovar?

    23 A. Yes, in the direction of the veterinarian

    24 station and the graveyard.

    25 He went to look for her. He did indeed find

  49. 1 her. They came to our place together and stayed for

    2 four or five nights, and then they moved to our

    3 neighbours' because we were overcrowded. Our daughter

    4 with her baby was with us. There were a lot of people

    5 coming and going. As I said, we were overcrowded, and

    6 to keep us comfortable, they moved to our neighbours'

    7 where they spent some time until they redid their own

    8 apartment in the spring.

    9 Q. Mr. Vodicka has died in the meantime?

    10 A. Yes. He died on the 15th of September, 1997.

    11 Q. It was after the arrest?

    12 A. Yes, it was after the arrest.

    13 Q. Did you have friends of other nationalities?

    14 A. Yes, we did, a lot of them, actually. In

    15 fact, none of us were really interested in

    16 nationalities. Vukovar has always been a

    17 multi-national, multi-ethnic environment, and nobody

    18 really cared for other people's nationalities. We were

    19 friends and acquaintances.

    20 Q. Was it important for your husband,

    21 nationality?

    22 A. No, it didn't matter at all to Slavko, and

    23 Zlatko would not have otherwise dared to look for him

    24 and stay with him.

    25 Q. Mrs. Dokmanovic, throughout all those years

  50. 1 you spent together, since you started dating --

    2 A. Twenty-nine years of marriage plus.

    3 Q. -- has your husband ever been convicted of

    4 anything? Was he fighting? Involved in any fights?

    5 Was he expressing national hatred?

    6 A. "No" to all those questions.

    7 Q. We will repeat because we do not have your

    8 answers.

    9 In Trpinja, was there water and electricity

    10 in Trpinja?

    11 A. No, no, because -- I can't tell you the exact

    12 date but sometime since August 1991 to the spring of

    13 '92, because networks were broken, cables were down,

    14 and works couldn't be executed at that time. Not

    15 everyone in the area got electricity back.

    16 Q. The army in this period managed to provide a

    17 power generator, so from time to time you did have

    18 water?

    19 A. Trpinja is a village which is not plugged

    20 onto the network of Vukovar. We had our own water

    21 supply and our own water well and we had a pump

    22 supplying that water. It was an electrical pump, so

    23 during the power cuts, we were deprived of water as

    24 well, and people needed water to wash, to feed the

    25 cattle. As I said, we are an agricultural area. There

  51. 1 were households which at that time had over a hundred

    2 pigs, for instance, and we couldn't carry water from

    3 God knows where. So we had our own water supply in

    4 cattle sheds.

    5 From time to time, we got supplied with water

    6 in the morning and filled the reservoirs, buckets,

    7 whatever. Sometimes it lasted for an hour, a half an

    8 hour.

    9 Q. How was Slavko dressed in this period,

    10 November?

    11 A. In November, you say? Slavko was usually

    12 dressed in hunting clothes because civilian clothing

    13 was difficult to launder and iron, especially suits,

    14 whereas hunting dress was easy to launder. We just

    15 hung it out to dry.

    16 Q. I would like you now to have a look at

    17 Defence Exhibit 48. Is that the clothes that you're

    18 talking about? D48. Is that something that you

    19 submitted to me as clothes that he was wearing?

    20 A. Yes, that is it. That is the jacket -- the

    21 vest, sorry. Yes, this is the shirt and the trousers.

    22 Q. What is this?

    23 A. This is -- what shall I call it? -- a jacket

    24 or -- a warm jacket. He had this as an agronomer.

    25 This is actually working clothes he received to work in

  52. 1 in the field, during the harvest, during the sowing

    2 season, and in cold weather, they used to wear these

    3 fur-lined jackets.

    4 Q. So these are the clothes which he was wearing

    5 during the incriminated times?

    6 A. Yes. He wore this in cold weather.

    7 Q. This is what you gave to me?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 MR. FILA: This concludes my examination. I

    10 have no further questions.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

    12 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, Your Honour.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Well, I assume

    14 there is no objection to the witness being released.

    15 Mrs. Dokmanovic, thank you so much for coming here to

    16 give evidence. You may now be released.

    17 (The witness withdrew)

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, are you going to

    19 call your next witness?

    20 MR. FILA: Yes, of course. I have two more

    21 witnesses, and I should conclude with them. We work

    22 until 1.00; is that correct, Your Honours?

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Until 12.30, and then we

    24 resume at 2.00.

    25 MR. FILA: Yes. All right.

  53. 1 (The witness entered)

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Could you

    3 please read the solemn declaration?

    4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

    6 truth.


    8 Examined by Mr. Fila:

    9 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, what is your relationship to

    10 Slavko Dokmanovic?

    11 A. He is my father.

    12 Q. What's the year of your birth?

    13 A. The 7th December '73.

    14 Q. (No translation)

    15 A. Higher agricultural school in Vukovar.

    16 Q. When I ask you a question, please make a ten

    17 minutes' (sic) break before you answer?

    18 A. I finished high school for agriculture in

    19 Vukovar.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Ten seconds, not ten minutes.

    21 MR. FILA: Ten seconds, I'm sorry. I said

    22 minutes, didn't I? Ten seconds.

    23 Q. So then, will you tell us, when did you serve

    24 in the army? When did you go to school?

    25 A. I graduated from high school in 1991. I

  54. 1 spent my schooling in Vukovar, and I served the army in

    2 Raska. On the 18th of December, I started my national

    3 service, in 1991.

    4 Q. Raska, that's in the territory of Yugoslavia?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. When did you go back from the army?

    7 A. On the 19th of May, 1991.

    8 Q. You mean 1992?

    9 A. '92, I'm sorry.

    10 Q. Why did you go back on that date?

    11 A. Well, in our unit, as with any other unit in

    12 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, came an order that

    13 all the soldiers from the former Yugoslav republics

    14 should finish doing their national service in the place

    15 of their residence.

    16 Q. And Vukovar was your place of residence?

    17 A. That's right. Trpinja, in fact.

    18 Q. What happened then? You went back to

    19 Vukovar?

    20 A. Yes. I finished serving the national service

    21 in Vukovar. Then in 1996, I got married. That was in

    22 March. I have a son, eight months old. Unfortunately,

    23 my father hasn't seen his grandchild. Right now, I

    24 live in Sombor, in a rented house.

    25 Q. When you were in Vukovar in 1996, where did

  55. 1 you work?

    2 A. I worked in the transitional customs

    3 service. That was an UNTAES body. And when I went to

    4 Sombor, I continued to work in the customs.

    5 Q. Was your father opposed to you working for

    6 UNTAES?

    7 A. Never.

    8 Q. In the course of his tenure as the president

    9 of the municipal assembly in Vukovar, did he have

    10 anything against the presence of the United Nations?

    11 A. No, never.

    12 Q. Do you know whether he took part in the

    13 negotiations concerning the Erdut agreement?

    14 A. Yes. Yes, he did.

    15 Q. Did he have any problems because of that

    16 caused by extremist Serbs?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. What kind of problems?

    19 A. Well, he was threatened, intimidated. They

    20 said that he was not good enough as a Serb, and he was

    21 attacked because of that.

    22 Q. What does it mean, "a good Serb" ?

    23 A. My father was never a nationalist and that's

    24 why he had problems. He was a moderate man.

    25 Q. In the circle of your acquaintances, your

  56. 1 family, your father's friends and your friends, were

    2 there people of other nationalities?

    3 A. Yes, certainly. Our best friend was a Croat;

    4 unfortunately, he's dead. I think it says enough about

    5 what kind of a man my father was.

    6 Q. In conclusion, please tell us: As a father,

    7 was he a real parent to you or whether he tortured you,

    8 whether he was a drunkard, a violent man, and all the

    9 worst things you can say about a father?

    10 A. My father is an honourable and an honest

    11 man. He is a good parent. He always advised us how to

    12 deal with problems facing us in our lives. He never

    13 beat us. All the problems that we encountered, we

    14 solved by talking to each other.

    15 Q. You live together; you all live together with

    16 the exception of your father, unfortunately?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. So that's your sister, your brother-in-law --

    19 A. My wife, my son, my mother.

    20 Q. Your sister is about to give birth?

    21 A. Yes, in mid July. That's why she's not here.

    22 Q. That's right, that's why she's not here?

    23 MR. FILA: Thank you very much. I have no

    24 further questions.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

  57. 1 Mr. Williamson?

    2 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, Your Honours.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. The witness, I

    4 imagine there's no objection to his being released.

    5 Thank you so much for coming to give evidence,

    6 Mr. Dokmanovic. You may now be released.

    7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

    8 (The witness withdrew)

    9 (The witness entered court)

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Could you

    11 please read the solemn declaration?

    12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I shall

    13 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

    14 truth.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be

    16 seated.

    17 Mr. Fila?

    18 MR. FILA: Thank you.


    20 Examined by Mr. Fila:

    21 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, what is your relationship to

    22 Slavko Dokmanovic?

    23 A. Slavko is my brother.

    24 Q. Where do you live and what do you do for a

    25 living?

  58. 1 A. I live in the village of Trpinja, the

    2 municipality of Vukovar. I work in agriculture. I'm

    3 self-employed.

    4 Q. Have you spent all your life in Trpinja?

    5 A. Yes. I was born there; I went to school

    6 there; I married there; and I live in our old family

    7 house.

    8 Q. How far is that house from the house where

    9 Slavko Dokmanovic lived?

    10 A. Up to 500 metres.

    11 Q. So it's practically one in the same farm?

    12 A. No, it's not the same farm. It's the same

    13 street. The houses are 500 metres apart.

    14 Q. Is that your common property?

    15 A. No. His house is his property, and the

    16 family house is both of our property.

    17 Q. Is it a deserted house?

    18 A. No, I live in my own house. Slavko's house

    19 is deserted. I house-sit for him.

    20 Q. How much is it worth, according to today's

    21 prices?

    22 A. Well, about 100.000 Deutschemark, I believe.

    23 Q. And how do Serbs sell their property now?

    24 A. He wouldn't receive more than 50, according

    25 to the real estate agencies.

  59. 1 Q. What kind of man has your brother been?

    2 A. We spent a lot of time together in the same

    3 house because I was -- I have been motherless since a

    4 very small age. His wife and he took care of me. My

    5 brother saw me through school until I got married and

    6 started to work myself, until I was 25 or 26.

    7 Q. You mean your brother Slavko?

    8 A. Yes, Slavko took care of me. He went to

    9 parents meetings for me when I was in school. He saw

    10 me through school.

    11 Q. Was he a popular man in Trpinja and how

    12 popular was he?

    13 A. He has always been popular since a young man,

    14 a soccer player, then as a good agronomer. People

    15 often came to our house while we still lived together

    16 to solicit advice.

    17 Q. Was he popular only with Serbs or other

    18 ethnicities as well?

    19 A. People of other nationalities lived in the

    20 village too. He had very good friends among them. And

    21 his best friend was a Croat; he was almost a member of

    22 the family. His name was Zlatko Vodicka, the late

    23 Zlatko Vodicka.

    24 Q. How did you react when hearing that Slavko

    25 Dokmanovic was arrested for such a crime?

  60. 1 A. At first, I was shocked, and then I felt some

    2 sort of revolt. People were taken aback, asked

    3 themselves why; how on earth? They were mostly taken

    4 aback.

    5 Q. Will you look at these documents, please, and

    6 tell us what you gave us when you came here?

    7 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D150.

    8 MR. FILA:

    9 Q. Will you tell us what this is all about?

    10 A. This is a petition written by the population

    11 of the village of Trpinja. There are other people

    12 signed here as well from the surrounding villages, some

    13 sort of protest or solidarity with their ex-citizen, to

    14 the effect that they disagree with his arrest because

    15 he has not deserved this by any of his actions; a

    16 statement to the effect that they want to justify his

    17 role in the village as an honourable man, an honourable

    18 citizen, hard-working man who has helped a great deal

    19 the entire village in its main activity and also in

    20 sports activities, et cetera; and to help prove his

    21 innocence.

    22 MR. FILA: Your Honour, in our system, this

    23 is accepted as evidence. If your system does not

    24 accept this as evidence, please admit this as an

    25 exhibit -- please have it marked for identification, I

  61. 1 mean, what his wider community thinks of him. If you

    2 can, if you possibly can, admit it as evidence.

    3 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we might have a moment.

    4 Your Honour, the only objection we would have

    5 in regard to this is just that there's no verification

    6 of reliability. I mean, there appears to be a number

    7 of signatures on here, but there's no way of knowing

    8 the authenticity of signatures or names or anything at

    9 this point. And that would be our objection to its

    10 admission.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: I see your point. On the

    12 other hand, this is evidence relating to the character

    13 of Mr. Dokmanovic. And, in addition, as you know, the

    14 court has the power to decide upon the probative value

    15 of each document. So although it is true that there's

    16 no authentication of the signatures, I don't see why we

    17 should not admit it into evidence.

    18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour.

    19 That's our --

    20 MR. FILA: Counsel, I'm sorry,

    21 Mr. Williamson, for interrupting you, I have an

    22 original which I will hand to you. These are original

    23 signatures here.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: The question is not -- of

    25 course you will admit into evidence the original. The

  62. 1 question is not that we were not given the original,

    2 but the question is that there is no authentication of

    3 the various signatures. However, in spite of that, if

    4 the Prosecution has no major objection --

    5 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's our only objection,

    6 Your Honour. If Your Honours are prepared to admit it

    7 then --

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, it will be admitted into

    9 evidence. Thank you.

    10 MR. FILA: Counsel, please take this

    11 original.

    12 THE REGISTRAR: D150.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: 150, thank you.

    14 MR. FILA:

    15 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, another thing, throughout

    16 this period, you said you spent your entire life in

    17 Trpinja. Will you describe war events in 1991? Were

    18 any bombs thrown on Trpinja?

    19 A. During the war which began in '91, sometime

    20 in June, July, there were exchanges of fire over

    21 barricades. There were bombs falling on Trpinja and

    22 surrounding villages, shells also, grenades, mortar

    23 fire. There have been casualties. And shelling came

    24 from Vukovar.

    25 Q. Was the Territorial Defence involved in the

  63. 1 village of Trpinja?

    2 A. I, as every other man who served in the

    3 former JNA, and I was issued a uniform as some sort of

    4 reservist. All other men did the same. All healthy

    5 men under the age of 60 had to belong to some sort of

    6 reservist formation or the Territorial Defence,

    7 according to the constitution of the SFRY. Thus, all

    8 of us men in the village had to do the same thing

    9 during the war. It was not even in the village. It

    10 was duty on the street, some sort of outlook posts,

    11 lookouts. We kept duty service.

    12 Q. Did you do any fighting outside the village?

    13 A. No, we remained in the village. My duties

    14 were on my own street, on the crossroads, and on the

    15 entrance from the side, from the direction of the

    16 village of Dalj. That's where we spent all this time.

    17 Q. Do you remember the situation with

    18 electricity and water supply during wartime, November,

    19 December?

    20 A. I believe power cuts began at the end of

    21 July. We had more problems being deprived of water

    22 than being deprived of electricity. We suffered from

    23 lack of water until we got a water pump, an electrical

    24 water pump, which worked for about an hour or two every

    25 day. The village suffered, although many houses have

  64. 1 their own wells.

    2 Q. How did you dress at that time?

    3 Specifically, how did Slavko Dokmanovic dress?

    4 A. We had to dress according to the situation.

    5 We had to wear clothes which were easy to launder,

    6 clothes which could do without laundering for several

    7 days running.

    8 Q. Your brother served in the army as everyone

    9 else?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. When he served, what was he; an officer, a

    12 general?

    13 A. He was a simple soldier. His national

    14 service was in Krusevac. It was an ABH service. He

    15 did not receive any rank, then or afterwards.

    16 Q. Did he wear a uniform ever, an officer's

    17 uniform, active or reservist officer?

    18 A. No, never. Except, perhaps, during military

    19 actions, we soldiers put on those uniforms we were

    20 issued, but that was rare.

    21 Q. That was only in the village?

    22 A. Yes, that was only inside the village. Those

    23 were old and hardly usable uniforms.

    24 Q. So if I understood you well, you yourself put

    25 on the uniform sometimes?

  65. 1 A. Yes, as we were ordered, according --

    2 following military orders.

    3 Q. Meaning that Slavko, too, sometimes put on

    4 that uniform in the village?

    5 A. Yes, that is so.

    6 Q. It would be good for you to describe that

    7 uniform.

    8 A. We called that the drab, olive colour, thick

    9 cloth, especially in cold weather. We wore overcoats,

    10 mostly to protect ourselves from the cold.

    11 MR. FILA: Thank you. That would be all.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Williamson?

    13 Cross-examined by Mr. Williamson:

    14 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, you indicated that in

    15 Trpinja, there was some shelling and exchanges of fire

    16 over barricades in June and July of 1991. There was

    17 very little damage, though, in Trpinja; was there not?

    18 A. I did not say when the shelling took place.

    19 There was some damage in Trpinja, but since the village

    20 itself -- that's the life in the village. When a shell

    21 fell on a house, then the same day or the next day, we

    22 would fix that house immediately.

    23 Q. But in comparison to what happened to the

    24 Croatian areas in Vukovar municipality, Trpinja came

    25 out pretty light, didn't it?

  66. 1 A. Well, yes, yes, if you look at it that way,

    2 that's correct.

    3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no further

    4 questions.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I assume there's

    6 no objection to the witness being released?

    7 Thank you for coming to give evidence in

    8 court. You may now be released, Mr. Dokmanovic. Thank

    9 you.

    10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

    11 (The witness withdrew)

    12 MR. FILA: Your Honours, my next witness is

    13 due to appear at two. That's the expert witness, and

    14 that's my last witness.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: So this afternoon, first of

    16 all, we will hear your witness, Professor Aleksic. And

    17 then I understand the investigator, Dzuro for the

    18 Prosecution afterwards?

    19 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct, Your Honour.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Only two witnesses this

    21 afternoon?

    22 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct. And then we

    23 would have our two additional witnesses ready tomorrow.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Tomorrow morning. So

    25 tomorrow, again, only two witnesses?

  67. 1 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: So that means that probably

    3 tomorrow we can finish by lunch time.

    4 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I concluded.

    5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think they will be -- I

    6 think it's foreseeable that we could finish by lunch

    7 time.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Yes, I was

    9 rightly reminded that tomorrow morning at 9.30, we have

    10 the initial appearance of a new indictee, of an

    11 indictee who has recently been arrested and brought

    12 here. This will be held at 9.30. I propose,

    13 therefore, that we reconvene at 10.15. And then, of

    14 course, if we need some time, we could continue in the

    15 afternoon.

    16 MR. FILA: If that's the last one, somebody

    17 asked me to stand in for him tomorrow morning. So I

    18 will be here tomorrow morning if that's the one. I

    19 don't know if that's the one. So it won't take long

    20 because I won't be defending him.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: It's just an initial

    22 appearance, but I will be happy to see you already at

    23 9.30. Good, thank you.

    24 MR. FILA: Thank you.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: We will rise now and we will

  68. 1 resume at two sharp.

    2 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
























  69. 1 --- On resuming at 2.03 p.m.

    2 (The accused entered court)

    3 (The witness entered court)

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon. May I ask

    5 the witness to be so kind as to make the solemn

    6 declaration?

    7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    8 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

    9 truth.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be

    11 seated.

    12 Mr. Fila?


    14 Examined by Mr. Fila:

    15 MR. FILA: I apologise because the Prosecutor

    16 has received only a draft of this document, but I

    17 wanted to provide as long an expert opinion as possible

    18 so that I can ask as few questions as possible.

    19 Q. Mr. Aleksic, are you a professor? Were you

    20 born in 1931 in Belgrade?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Did you graduate from the Belgrade law

    23 faculty?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. You were an assistant lecturer and then a

  70. 1 lecturer?

    2 A. That's right.

    3 Q. Did you lecture abroad, in the U.S., in Japan

    4 China, U.S.S.R.?

    5 A. I was a visiting professor in several

    6 countries.

    7 Q. You published, as far as I can see, lots of

    8 books?

    9 A. Yes. Yes, I'm also quite old.

    10 Q. Did you publish more books or do you have

    11 more years?

    12 A. Unfortunately, I have more years than I have

    13 published books. It would be good if it were the other

    14 way around.

    15 Q. I can see that you were the President of the

    16 Yugoslav Society for Criminal Sociological Research?

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. Of the Association of Lawyers in Belgrade?

    19 A. Yes, that's right.

    20 Q. You were the editor of the Law Review?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. Archive for the Legal and Social Studies?

    23 A. That's right.

    24 Q. You trained police forces in international

    25 organisations?

  71. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. In Zambia, Sweden, Germany?

    3 A. That's right.

    4 Q. You were also an associate -- you also

    5 cooperated with the United Nations with regard to drug

    6 problems?

    7 A. That's correct.

    8 Q. And you spent several years as a President of

    9 the Association of Teachers of Law as part of the

    10 Association of International Law for Peace?

    11 A. Yes, that's right.

    12 Q. Now you are also a member of this council of

    13 that organisation?

    14 A. That's right.

    15 Q. And you are a representative of Yugoslavia in

    16 the Association for International Law?

    17 A. That's right.

    18 Q. Can you please check whether this is your CV,

    19 and if it is, I would like this to be admitted?

    20 A. Yes, it is.

    21 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D151

    22 and the English translation D151A.

    23 MR. FILA: Thank you. I hope that there are

    24 no objections for this document to be admitted as a

    25 Defence Exhibit.

  72. 1 Q. Please have a look at those documents and

    2 tell us whether this is your expert opinion.

    3 A. Yes, it is.

    4 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D152

    5 and the draft English translation D152A.

    6 MR. FILA: A part of the penal code of SFRY

    7 was translated later due to lack of time, and I would

    8 like this to be appended to the previous document. So

    9 this is not to be admitted as a separate Defence

    10 Exhibit, this is just a translation of a legal text.

    11 If there are no objections, I would like to

    12 tender the expert opinion as a Defence Exhibit.

    13 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be marked

    14 D --

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: There is no objection, I

    16 understand.

    17 MR. NIEMANN: No, no.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    19 THE REGISTRAR: This last document will be

    20 marked D152A/1.

    21 MR. FILA:

    22 Q. Mr. Aleksic, it is usual before this Trial

    23 Chamber, when an expert is -- it is usual for an expert

    24 of your profile to be questioned when the sentencing is

    25 about to begin?

  73. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. This is what happened in the Tadic case --

    3 well, we have changed the rules somewhat -- and you are

    4 being questioned before the Trial Chamber brings its

    5 decision whether the accused is guilty or not. It is

    6 therefore important to note now, what did you use as a

    7 basis for your expert opinion? What did I give you?

    8 A. I received from you the amended indictment,

    9 and I used it as a basis for the consideration and

    10 comparison with the former penal code in SFRY.

    11 Q. Can you please tell us which law was in force

    12 from the 28th of September of 1976 onwards and, please,

    13 just continue?

    14 A. I express my respect to the Trial Chamber and

    15 all the others who will be listening to me. I want to

    16 say that the penal code of SFRY was passed in 1976, but

    17 it came into force only in July 1977. It was in force

    18 for the entire territory of SFRY.

    19 There were several amendments to the law, but

    20 those amendments did not apply to Chapter 16, which is

    21 the topic of our discussion here. The amendments were

    22 elsewhere.

    23 The situation lasted until 1990. In 1990,

    24 the Official Gazette of the SFRY, on the 6th of July,

    25 1990, published the amendments of this very chapter,

  74. 1 Chapter 16; and in the articles contained in the

    2 amendments, it introduced several new elements, and

    3 also the punishment of the confiscation of property was

    4 repealed. These amendments were provided to you, were

    5 published in the Official Gazette in 1990, and they

    6 mostly refer to a certain expansion of the criminal

    7 offences, and there are some new articles; for

    8 instance, you will see in the law, there are some

    9 articles designated A and B. For instance, Article

    10 150A, 150B, it concerns repatriation and so forth. You

    11 have to understand this because most criminal offences

    12 in the SFRY were punished very strictly after the war.

    13 That's the period from 1945 until 1950, right at the

    14 beginning in the fervour of deliberation and the fight

    15 against fascism. Of course, there were many executions

    16 that were not strictly legal and decisions which are

    17 not legal and which we copied the U.S.S.R. practice.

    18 By 1950, things calmed down a bit, and from

    19 that time onwards, we had the usual situation. A

    20 number of perpetrators of criminal acts died, simply

    21 died, those who were not discovered, and this act was

    22 not something that happened very often.

    23 I would now like you to go to the end of my

    24 expert opinion. For your purposes, I studied the

    25 information, the data, from 1980 until 1990. Of

  75. 1 course, I was surprised myself because that period,

    2 from 1980 until 1990, had very few cases, and, in fact,

    3 the same situation applied from 1977 when this law came

    4 into force. We had about two or three convictions a

    5 year. You can see that there are some death sentences

    6 but you also have sentences of three to five, five to

    7 ten, ten to fifteen years' imprisonment which obviously

    8 indicate that this is a case of aiding and abetting.

    9 According to the report published by the

    10 Yugoslav Statistics Office, I even found a suspended

    11 sentence. I did not have enough time to study that

    12 particular sentence, but it is absolutely true that

    13 since 1987 until 1990, there were no convictions for

    14 criminal offences described in Chapter 16. It's like

    15 some kind of a calm before the tempest that struck my

    16 country, what was then my country and what is my

    17 country now.

    18 Q. After 1990, the First Amendment was passed in

    19 1993. That's in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    20 What changed?

    21 A. The first Official Gazette of the FRY, the

    22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that's issue 35/92,

    23 after that there were certain amendments, and then

    24 there was the 16th of July, 1993, where it was

    25 published that death penalty, the capital sentence, is

  76. 1 abolished in the penal code of the Federal Republic of

    2 Yugoslavia, and it was furthermore added that the

    3 sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was prescribed for

    4 the most serious offences. So in 1993, 20 years of

    5 imprisonment was the prescribed sentence. Up until

    6 that time, 15 years of imprisonment was a maximum

    7 penalty or the death penalty which could then be

    8 reversed or commuted to 20 years.

    9 So it was considered that 15 years'

    10 imprisonment was the most severe sentence unless the

    11 death penalty was commuted to 20 years.

    12 After 1993, the death penalty was no more,

    13 only 20 years' imprisonment, and confiscation was also

    14 abolished as a sentence.

    15 Q. Professor, if you look at the indictment, you

    16 know what you have to say. Can you please tell us,

    17 what about the forms of aiding and abetting or being an

    18 accomplice?

    19 A. The issue of being an accomplice in the penal

    20 code -- I know that you're all experts in law, so you

    21 know that it's a very serious question. It's a

    22 difficult question for students when they have their

    23 exams and later on in courts, the judges have many

    24 problems when they try to determine the truth.

    25 The penal code of SFRY recognises different

  77. 1 forms of being an accomplice. The most serious one is

    2 when a person is a co-perpetrator. I don't know

    3 whether I should define what does it mean if one is a

    4 co-perpetrator. I will just tell you that in

    5 Yugoslavia, both in theory and practice, that the

    6 theory of distribution of roles was accepted so that

    7 the co-perpetrator is a person who acts together with

    8 other persons to perpetrate the criminal offence and

    9 the commission of the act is their joint objective.

    10 So this is the theory with which you are all

    11 very familiar. I have to say that Yugoslavia, and

    12 Serbia in particular, had a penal code as early as in

    13 the 14th century, but later on, when Yugoslavia came

    14 into being after the First World War, we were under the

    15 strong influence of the Roman law, I mean Italian and

    16 French law, and later on German and Austrian law, so

    17 this is what we had to build on.

    18 At any rate, any perpetrator is responsible

    19 within the limits of his mens rea, so if you have two

    20 persons who perpetrated the criminal offence, if one

    21 person expands his intention, so if they attack a woman

    22 wanting to rob her and then one of them rapes her, the

    23 person who raped her is responsible singly because that

    24 was not their joint intention, that was not what they

    25 wanted.

  78. 1 Incitement is also very strictly punished in

    2 our country because we deem that a person who incites

    3 another person to commit a criminal offence has to be

    4 punished as if he had committed the crime himself. I

    5 think this is a general fundament which is present in

    6 most of the penal codes today. So incitement is when

    7 you incite the person who has not formed the intent to

    8 commit the criminal act, and by inciting him, you

    9 actually aid him to commit a certain criminal offence.

    10 Of course, you can also incite a person who

    11 has already planned the commission of the act but has

    12 not made the decision to actually execute the plan. So

    13 if the person who incites another person, who has

    14 already formed the plan, the intention to commit the

    15 crime, then this is not incitement but so-called failed

    16 incitement.

    17 As for aiding, which is also a form of being

    18 an accomplice, I would like to pay some more attention

    19 to that since I can see that this is charged in the

    20 indictment.

    21 First of all, I have to say that I am not

    22 familiar with this element. If I'm not mistaken, it

    23 says there that a person -- that he aided and abetted.

    24 We do not have this in the Yugoslav penal code. We

    25 have the aiding element, but this other element, I have

  79. 1 to say, with all due respect, that it's very dangerous

    2 to introduce those elements into the penal code which

    3 allow the judges a lot of leeway in interpretation.

    4 It is punishable in our penal code if

    5 somebody, with intent, aids another person. Such a

    6 person will be punished as if he had committed the act,

    7 and the sentence can be commuted.

    8 As regards aiding, the spectrum is very

    9 broad. It contains advice and all forms of

    10 encouragement to the perpetrator. However, in the old

    11 Yugoslav penal code, we insisted on the intent to aid

    12 the perpetrator, and the act had to be perpetrated.

    13 What does it mean, the intent? It means that

    14 the decision is made and that that person is mentally

    15 responsible.

    16 Q. So you can't be aiding somebody by chance?

    17 A. No. There has to be an intent. It may be,

    18 for instance, guarding in front of the door or it can

    19 also be, for instance, you take somebody for a walk

    20 knowing that the burglar will commit a burglary during

    21 that time and so on.

    22 Aiding presupposes that a person has already

    23 made the decision to commit the criminal act, and that

    24 corresponds to the nature of the relationship between

    25 the perpetrator and the aider, the abettor. The

  80. 1 abettor has to have the intent. It is impossible to

    2 have the aiding and abetting without the intent. So

    3 you have to have the awareness.

    4 It is possible to punish, with a less severe

    5 sentence, the abettor, especially in relationship to

    6 the co-perpetrator and the person who incited somebody

    7 to commit the crime because this is a less severe form

    8 of being an accomplice, and also it makes it possible

    9 for the abettor to change his mind and to make it

    10 easier for that person to be arrested.

    11 Q. What is the practice of Yugoslavia? Were

    12 abettors punished as severely as perpetrators?

    13 A. They were punished much less severely, and in

    14 Chapter 16, which is under consideration by the

    15 esteemed court, as you have seen in this list -- it is

    16 a brief list but I can't invent more cases than there

    17 actually were -- you can see a difference every year

    18 between severe punishments of perpetrators and more

    19 lenient sentences to aiders, aiders and abettors,

    20 because an abettor can be a political -- can be a

    21 person who has the same political views or espouse,

    22 et cetera. Anyway, the court does not punish them with

    23 equal harshness.

    24 Also, the limits of criminal culpability are

    25 clearly defined, and if you look at Chapter 25, I am

  81. 1 prepared to give the court our penal code from that

    2 time, and I also have a doctoral thesis of a current

    3 professor from Kragujevac entitled "Aiding as a Form of

    4 Complicity."

    5 We also have a very serious form, and that is

    6 the forming of criminal associations deserving very

    7 harsh sentences under our code, but this concept

    8 presupposes the existence of a plan, and every action

    9 outside that plan is something of individual

    10 culpability.

    11 One of the other things which I noticed in

    12 this indictment and which would have been treated

    13 differently in Yugoslavia, better or worse it is not

    14 upon me to say, but following European traditions, we

    15 treat the acquiring of criminal acts as they are

    16 treated in Europe. In this law of 1770 -- 77, it says

    17 that if the perpetrator committed several acts for

    18 which the perpetrator is being tried simultaneously, he

    19 will be given a joint sentence for all of them. The

    20 joint sentence --

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry to interrupt. Just to

    22 correct the transcript. Here your words were

    23 translated as follows: "... we treat the acquiring of

    24 criminal acts as they are treated in Europe." Probably

    25 you meant -- of course, I'm sure that your language was

  82. 1 quite accurate -- probably it should be "concurrence."

    2 MR. FILA: Concurrence. "Concurrence," not

    3 "the acquiring."

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I apologise.

    5 A. You all know that very frequently -- thank

    6 you for this intervention -- you know that very

    7 frequently in life, we have before the courts

    8 perpetrators and delinquents who do their crimes in

    9 various manners, and the court treats them

    10 differently. I will say more about that later.

    11 But according to the indictment, the Yugoslav

    12 penal code, and I believe European penal codes, we

    13 don't have this characteristic that one act can involve

    14 four or five different criminal acts.

    15 If I stab somebody and then break his rib and

    16 then stab him through the heart, it is one murder. I

    17 cannot answer for it by being charged on four or five

    18 counts. And as you know, we were under Turkish

    19 occupation for very long, and one of our public figures

    20 Vaso Peligic (phoen), was sentenced to 101 years, and

    21 all for writing one book because this book did have

    22 this effect and then it had this effect.

    23 Q. I'm sorry, Professor, for interrupting you,

    24 but what matters is Chapter 16, which we are discussing

    25 here. Chapter 16 envisages certain criminal acts which

  83. 1 you omitted to mention but they also contain other

    2 crimes, murder, et cetera. Are they treated in the

    3 same way in Yugoslavia?

    4 A. Criminal acts from Chapter 16 exist in

    5 accordance with Chapter 141 in accordance with the

    6 capital crime of genocide.

    7 I must say one thing about the entire Chapter

    8 16. Yugoslavia, the SFRY, as most countries, both in

    9 Europe and America, Asia and so on, has signed

    10 conventions which obligate our country to execute these

    11 conventions in their own legislations, and the

    12 provisions of these conventions are translated into the

    13 provisions of our law, and these laws repeat word for

    14 word what is said in the conventions.

    15 However, there are certain conventions which

    16 deal with particular subjects, like the conventions

    17 we've had since 1990. For instance, postponing the

    18 repatriation of captives. If somebody killed this

    19 prisoner, he cannot answer for both murder and for

    20 postponement of repatriation.

    21 Q. Let's talk about, for instance, genocide.

    22 Genocide is murder. According to the practice of our

    23 courts, would the person guilty of genocide be also

    24 answerable for murder, heavy bodily injuries,

    25 et cetera? What is the essence?

  84. 1 A. We widely practice the method of

    2 consummation, which means that if a person commits a

    3 crime, in order to reach the highest point of the

    4 criminal ledger, he commits a number of crimes along

    5 the way. We, in punishing him, take into account the

    6 last, the most serious, the gravest crime.

    7 Our theory boils down to the belief that

    8 adding up various charges would make no sense, so we

    9 use consummation. I could point out a number of

    10 examples from various conferences because anything up

    11 over a certain number of years looks more like

    12 revenge. A person is heavily punished, even with 40

    13 days of gaol, not to speak of years and decades. We

    14 tried to lengthen our sentences, prison sentences, but

    15 there was a wide protest.

    16 Those are eternal discussions of criminal

    17 law, and if we turned to the past, we would find many

    18 examples of the same.

    19 If someone, in committing a crime, deserved a

    20 prison sentence, his sentences may be put together, but

    21 not over 15 years. I hope I was clear. So we have,

    22 for instance, a number of crimes, and we add up the

    23 sentences, but the sum turns out to be over 30 years.

    24 In this case, we have to take a maximum of 15 years.

    25 That is the main point of our law. This is sometimes

  85. 1 misunderstood by the public.

    2 The law also contains an instruction. If,

    3 for instance, our clause 4 of article 48 prescribes

    4 prison sentences of four years, then the joint sentence

    5 cannot exceed eight years. If we take fines, we have

    6 the same principle working. We envisage only one fine

    7 for multiple violations.

    8 So this is an ideal example of concurrence.

    9 We stand firmly in our law on the standpoint that there

    10 is an ideal concurrence of crimes, not of criminal

    11 laws. If this principle is based, as it is in our

    12 case, on a realistic view which is based on the real

    13 circumstances of the real world, then one act can have

    14 implications in several criminal acts.

    15 Q. The translation is not very good because the

    16 matter is complicated, so you must try to be slower.

    17 A. Sorry. I'm used to be listened to by

    18 students and I don't often take care of this.

    19 You see, there is also the apparent

    20 concurrence when an act corresponds to several

    21 descriptions of a criminal act but only one, in fact,

    22 is applicable. Then this apparent concurrence may be

    23 ideal or real.

    24 I have to apologise to the Trial Chamber. I

    25 know that you are very well familiar with this, but I'm

  86. 1 now in a situation where I have to tell you what the

    2 solutions were in the former law. From the extended

    3 criminal act, there is -- it boils down to one criminal

    4 act.

    5 Let me tell you just one more thing: In the

    6 theory of criminal law, there are several cases of

    7 apparent concurrence. There are three groups. The

    8 first group is made up of cases where apparent

    9 concurrence arises from the relationship of persons

    10 involved. And the second group contains cases which

    11 relate to the subsummation of one criminal act into

    12 another on the basis of the specific instance. The

    13 third group is the legal unity of various criminal

    14 acts.

    15 I will now tell you something about the

    16 extended, protracted criminal offence. As far back as

    17 in 1965 in December, there was a convention of the

    18 Supreme Court of Yugoslavia. And although this is not

    19 the law and we do not have the proceedings, the opinion

    20 brought at that convention is still valid in the

    21 practice before our courts. For the extended or

    22 protected criminal offence to be in existence, it is

    23 necessary for one person to commit two or more offences

    24 of the same kind but of separate nature, each of which

    25 contains all the legal elements required for that very

  87. 1 same criminal offence, either the more serious or the

    2 mitigated form. There has to be a certain continuum in

    3 time linking all those offences. All the charged

    4 offences, from the standpoint of a reasonable view, can

    5 be viewed as a unified whole.

    6 The construct of the protracted criminal

    7 offence is used very often in Europe, and it is not in

    8 contravention with the requests of the criminal policy

    9 that are valid right now. For the conditions of this

    10 offence to be met, it is not important that a person is

    11 a perpetrator, a person who insights or aids or abets

    12 the criminal offences that are a part of the protracted

    13 criminal offence, may be committed by acts, omissions,

    14 or may also be attempted criminal offences.

    15 What is interesting for this Trial Chamber is

    16 that in combined cases, the legal qualification for

    17 these kinds of offences is always done in accordance

    18 with the most serious legal qualification.

    19 Q. What does it mean that if somebody is an

    20 instigator or an abettor, he is always treated as a

    21 perpetrator?

    22 A. No, no, no. Also the identity is taken into

    23 account, the nature of the culpability and also the

    24 manner in which the criminal offence was committed.

    25 Q. Professor, just one clarification --

  88. 1 A. I just have the sentencing.

    2 Q. We have enough time. Let me just clarify one

    3 thing. With the criminal offence of murder, we have

    4 homicide, murder, cruel murder, murder out of a

    5 vendetta, and so forth. If somebody commits one of

    6 those crimes, is he tried for only one aspect of the

    7 crime or is he charged with all the aspects?

    8 A. Well, murder is a horrible event in the life

    9 of any man or the society as a whole, but there are

    10 different kinds of homicide. First of all, for

    11 instance, you have the mitigated form when a child is

    12 killed during the birth or you have the violent and

    13 cruel murder.

    14 Q. But if somebody commits a cruel murder -- so

    15 first it is a murder, and then it is a violent or cruel

    16 one -- in SFRY, did we try somebody for murder and for

    17 cruel murder or just for one of them?

    18 A. Well, just for one of them and the more

    19 serious one. There is a special kind of homicide in

    20 the penal code of the SFRY. That's grievous bodily

    21 harm which is compounded with death. So we now look at

    22 the intent of the person who committed the murder. If

    23 it's a manslaughter, then it's a manslaughter. If

    24 there's intent present, then it's homicide with

    25 intent. But if somebody hit somebody else, and that

  89. 1 other person fell down and died right at the spot or

    2 later in the hospital, then we go to the intent and we

    3 use the qualified form of the grievous bodily harm. So

    4 that's grievous bodily harm qualified by death.

    5 Q. So death was not something for which intent

    6 existed?

    7 A. That's right.

    8 Q. To conclude, I tried to make it as fast as

    9 possible. That's the issue of the fundamentals. You

    10 gave us the schedule of sentences until 1990. And let

    11 us repeat chapter 16, these are criminal offences

    12 against humanity and international law?

    13 A. Yes, that's chapter 16.

    14 Q. It was valid in 1990 throughout the territory

    15 of SFRY?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. In 1991, it was amended?

    18 A. That's right.

    19 Q. In 1990, it was amended, in fact. So in the

    20 provisions of the penal code of SFRY, it contains

    21 provisions how the sentencing is to be carried out.

    22 Can you please explain to the court: When the court

    23 gave out the sentence, what factors did it take into

    24 account, taking into account, of course, whether a

    25 person was a perpetrator, an instigator, an aider, an

  90. 1 abettor. What else in addition to that was taken as

    2 mitigating circumstances?

    3 A. The penal code envisages certain sentences,

    4 certain forms of punishment, but these are never given

    5 as categorical. There are always alternatives. There

    6 is always the range between this sentence and another

    7 sentence because that's life. And all the judges in

    8 the world want to individualise the sanction, the

    9 penalty, what is the right measure for that man. After

    10 all, even when you take medication, the dosage is not

    11 the same for each man. You have to take into account

    12 specific circumstances.

    13 Q. So let's go on to the provisions of article

    14 42; what are the mitigating circumstances?

    15 A. I think that Mr. Fila is actually taking his

    16 revenge. He used to be my student and now I have to

    17 listen to him. There was a congress in Argentina and

    18 then in Paris in '71. All these elements were taken

    19 into account. And today, in fact, the extreme cases

    20 are no longer applicable; although, for instance, in

    21 Greenland, they have some very strange sentences.

    22 Our penal code uses the criminal

    23 responsibility as the basis for the sentence, for the

    24 punishment. Secondly, we apply the principle of

    25 individualisation. Thirdly, there is the unity of

  91. 1 objective and subjective circumstances, and none is

    2 given priority. It is up to the court to decide. And,

    3 finally, the criminal law in our country deems that

    4 sentencing is up to the judges. It is a judicial

    5 function. And judges use the results of the scientific

    6 research and of expert opinions of other people,

    7 knowledge of sociology, psychology, criminology, and so

    8 forth, but they have to stick to these provisions.

    9 Article 48 sanctions the sentencing; and in

    10 articles 42 and 43, it provides for mitigating

    11 circumstances. The general rules for sentencing are as

    12 follows: Degree of criminal responsibility; the

    13 motives of the criminal act; the seriousness of threats

    14 or injury to the protected property; circumstances in

    15 which the crime was committed; previous life history of

    16 the perpetrator, taking into account the fact that some

    17 people may get derailed from their goals.

    18 Q. Yes, so that's the previous life of the

    19 person who committed the crime?

    20 A. That's right. Then personal circumstances.

    21 And one thing we pay a lot of attention to, and that's

    22 the conduct after the commission of the act, of the

    23 criminal act; and other things that speak to the

    24 personality of the perpetrator. So these are the

    25 circumstances which I can now elaborate, if you want us

  92. 1 to. But I will thank you for your attention, and I

    2 want to save myself from my former student.

    3 Q. I just wanted to ask one more thing. The

    4 passage of time from the commission of the act until

    5 the trial, is that taken into account as well?

    6 A. Well, I referred to it as the conduct of the

    7 perpetrator after the commission of the criminal act.

    8 Q. If a long time has passed, so if the

    9 perpetrator was not caught in the act, if a long time

    10 has passed, in accordance with our law, was the conduct

    11 of the perpetrator taken into account in the sense of

    12 whether he continued committing criminal offences or

    13 whether he acted within the law, whether he kept

    14 himself within the law?

    15 A. Our law, the penal law of SFRY, also has the

    16 statute of limitations. There are people who are not

    17 tried if the statute of limitations expires. But if

    18 the law gives him that possibility, it obviously

    19 envisages that such a person has not committed any

    20 other criminal acts in the meantime. And, of course,

    21 the conduct is looked into very carefully. There are

    22 some people who are at liberty because there wasn't

    23 enough evidence to convict them. You can take that

    24 into account.

    25 Q. Is the health state of the person also one of

  93. 1 the elements taken into account?

    2 A. Yes, the health state, also at the time of

    3 the commission and later on, is taken into account. In

    4 our penal code, like in other penal codes, we have

    5 provisions indicating that if a person, after

    6 conviction in sentencing, is diagnosed with a certain

    7 illness, we can have a review of the case to see

    8 whether the decision was right.

    9 Q. I'm not referring now only to mental

    10 illnesses but also to physical illnesses. Is it also a

    11 mitigating circumstance?

    12 A. Of course, there are cases where the

    13 responsibility is excluded due to those cases. In

    14 Yugoslavia, physical conditions are taken into account

    15 more than mental, but I'm of a view that certain mental

    16 conditions can affect the development of a person, and

    17 the sentence should strive to bring him back into

    18 the fold.

    19 And if we're dealing with a younger person,

    20 the sentence should not put him in a situation where he

    21 will just be remembering his criminal offence and where

    22 he will think of it as a bad dream and where he can

    23 continue to live normally. It would be, indeed,

    24 horrible if everybody who came under the influence of

    25 the legal machinery, if those people were marked. Just

  94. 1 like in the former times, people were branded with the

    2 letter "L" or "T" or thief.

    3 Q. In conclusion, the purpose of punishment in

    4 Yugoslavia was rehabilitation and not revenge?

    5 A. Well, this should be so in any civilised

    6 country. I have to tell you, you are young, my

    7 colleague, Fila.

    8 Q. I would not say so.

    9 A. You are younger than I am. There are people

    10 who are even younger than that. I, unfortunately,

    11 lived in the era which was under the strong influence

    12 of Oshinski (phoen). In the Yugoslav criminal law, the

    13 Prosecutor's office was deemed to be the right hand of

    14 the court, and the Defence counsel should cooperate

    15 with the court and should tell the court what the

    16 perpetrator has told him in confidence. Those were the

    17 trials where a person walked in and then was executed

    18 right away. I was horrified by that. In my country,

    19 the situation was better than in Russia, but it was

    20 horrible all the same.

    21 From that time on, with the permission of

    22 Mr. Prosecutor, I always tell my students that in the

    23 21st century, they should succeed in achieving that the

    24 Prosecutor's office should not be in the same building

    25 as the court is. The Prosecutor's office has to have

  95. 1 the strong apparatus that would be used to help him,

    2 but when they appear before the court, they should be

    3 just one of the parties.

    4 Q. Well, we're now referring to our domestic

    5 courts, not the Tribunal, but we have been through

    6 something that you are lucky you haven't been through,

    7 so we always have to take that into account. I think

    8 that Winston Churchill said that "Communism was good

    9 for us but not for the Englishmen." Thank you very

    10 much. I have no further questions.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Thank you,

    12 Mr. Fila. Prosecution?

    13 Cross-examined by Mr. Niemann:

    14 Q. We meet again, Professor.

    15 A. Yes, I hope with pleasure.

    16 Q. Professor, you were saying in your evidence,

    17 a moment ago, about what we call cumulative charging,

    18 that is, where one person is charged with a number of

    19 offences rising out of a set series of conduct, and you

    20 were discussing the instance of murder and cruel

    21 murder. What would happen in the former Yugoslavia in

    22 a situation where a person was charged only with cruel

    23 murder, that being the most serious offence, and the

    24 court came to the conclusion that the accused was not

    25 guilty of the cruel murder but had, in fact, committed

  96. 1 murder? Would the person be acquitted?

    2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you are opening a subject

    3 which is very complex, that is, the identity of

    4 indictment and the verdict. In our country, it looks

    5 usually like this: If the Prosecutor does not react in

    6 good time and if he doesn't change the qualification,

    7 he risks losing all together. But in such matters when

    8 charges are similar, the judge is entitled to change

    9 the qualification during the trial and Prosecutors

    10 usually look upon it as their own credit.

    11 Q. What would happen in a situation? What do

    12 you consider the situation would be if there was no

    13 power for the court to change it, if the court had no

    14 authority to change it from, say, cruel murder to

    15 murder once it had seen the facts?

    16 A. Theoretically speaking, if that provision did

    17 not exist, then the court would refuse the indictment,

    18 and that would be in bad taste, unusual,

    19 irresponsible. But if we were to support the theory of

    20 absolute identity of charges, then all such people, due

    21 to the fault of the Prosecutor, would remain

    22 unpunished, because the court would then not have the

    23 right to be flexible.

    24 Q. And I take it, Professor, that if you had a

    25 situation where neither the court could change the

  97. 1 indictment to reflect the actual crime itself, and it

    2 did find that a murder had been committed, and the

    3 person was acquitted because it couldn't change the

    4 indictment, that there could be no subsequent trial for

    5 murder because the person would have been through a

    6 trial and would have been acquitted. So the acquittal

    7 would stand against any further Prosecution?

    8 A. I don't know exactly what you mean, but I

    9 believe it would be unrealistic to think about a

    10 situation where it would be permitted, that due to

    11 differences between indictment and verdict, something

    12 like this could happen. But still I'm under the

    13 impression that you agree with me.

    14 Sometimes I surprise my students by stating

    15 that the truth is not the main principle in trial

    16 proceedings. I certainly won't surprise you. However,

    17 if we take non bis in idem, we can't try one person for

    18 the same thing twice, and if the judge does not object,

    19 one cannot be sentenced to a harsher sentence than

    20 asked for. And there are a number of things which

    21 support the rights of the defendant.

    22 However, I believe the court has a certain

    23 authority to be flexible, to be flexible and, on the

    24 other hand, the Prosecutor's office lives in the same

    25 house as the court. I believe in your system, in

  98. 1 Rotterdam, for instance, there is subordination. The

    2 Appeal Court can issue orders to a lower level court.

    3 Q. Yes. Well, Professor, I think in your

    4 extensive studies overseas, you would agree with me

    5 that in some jurisdictions, this problem is resolved by

    6 the Prosecution filing an indictment which contains

    7 cumulative charges, and the court can then deal with

    8 the issue on sentencing in terms of what is the

    9 appropriate penalty to be applied. So the emphasis is

    10 not -- the critical point is not the conviction stage,

    11 but the sentencing stage. Do you agree with me, that

    12 you're aware of that?

    13 A. Well, you know, with all due respect for you

    14 and my pleasure at knowing you, don't mind my saying

    15 that in a lawyer's jargon, it is called shooting with a

    16 shotgun. If we take it that there are enemies 1, 2, 3,

    17 and under item 7, we write all others for whom there is

    18 grounds for suspicion, I don't think your formulation

    19 is very happy (sic). If a doctor, for instance,

    20 examines a patient, he carries out cumulative

    21 laboratory and other analysis but he treats one

    22 disease.

    23 Q. I really wasn't asking you whether it was a

    24 process or system with which you agreed. I merely was

    25 asking you whether it was one with which you were

  99. 1 familiar?

    2 A. Yes.

    3 Q. I think that you would tell me that in

    4 Europe, in the civil systems, the approach is not to

    5 charge cumulatively, but to give the judge the power to

    6 impose or find the appropriate crime to fit the facts,

    7 should that arise; if not in your jurisdiction,

    8 certainly in other jurisdictions on the European

    9 continent?

    10 A. Did I -- was it the translation? You said

    11 "civilian proceedings."

    12 Q. I called it "civil proceedings," and I really

    13 am referring to proceedings other than those known as

    14 the common law.

    15 A. We, in Europe, differentiate between

    16 principles working for the civil proceedings and the

    17 criminal proceedings.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry to interrupt. I think

    19 the Prosecutor was referring to civil law systems, what

    20 you called before criminal systems of Roman-Germanic

    21 origin, say Yugoslavia, Germany, France, Italy, and so

    22 on, as opposed to common law systems. So it has

    23 nothing to do with civilian proceedings.

    24 A. We call that continental law. Mr. President,

    25 I do not know of a single criminal proceedings in

  100. 1 Europe where it would be allowed to use a shotgun.

    2 MR. NIEMANN:

    3 Q. And I wasn't asking that, but I'm not going

    4 to go into the virtues of duck hunting.

    5 A. Well, that is an area widely lied in.

    6 Q. Professor, in your paper that you have kindly

    7 provided us with, you deal with the law of the SFRY and

    8 then its amendments under the code of the Federal

    9 Republic in 1993. I think you will agree with me, the

    10 law of the FRY, SFRY, certainly would apply to what is

    11 now the Independent Sovereign State of Croatia but the

    12 law of the FRY, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, has

    13 no application to that country.

    14 A. Certainly, but as far as I know -- you know,

    15 I've been a law professor in Croatia for a long time,

    16 an honorary professor, and I have very nice memories

    17 of that.

    18 They took over the SFRY law for the first

    19 period, and since 1992, they've had their own

    20 provisions of their own making. You may correct me if

    21 I'm wrong. But at the time of the event you are

    22 discussing, practically nolens volens, the same

    23 provisions applied.

    24 Q. Yes, I think that's probably quite right.

    25 The question that I'm asking you, though, is really,

  101. 1 when you make reference to the FRY amendments in 1993,

    2 am I right in saying that they only apply to the member

    3 states of that federation and not to Croatia? And my

    4 next question is: Do you know what amendments were

    5 made to the law of Croatia after 1991? Do you know

    6 whether that was amended and in what respect, or was it

    7 similar to the amendments that were made in the Federal

    8 Republic of Yugoslavia?

    9 A. I must say that amendments to the Croatian

    10 law followed the conventions signed by the SFRY because

    11 they were common to all countries; and as for the SFRY,

    12 their own amendments abolished the death sentence

    13 earlier than we did. We abolished it in 1993 and they

    14 abolished it in 1992, I think.

    15 Q. So if we are looking for guidance as to

    16 sentencing practices for an offence that was committed

    17 on the territory of Croatia, it's true, isn't it, that

    18 we would look to the law initially of the Socialist

    19 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and then, ultimately, to

    20 any amendments that were made to the criminal law of

    21 Croatia?

    22 A. Yes, with a proviso that I would ask you to

    23 look at amendments from 1990 made in the SFRY because

    24 they were specially dedicated to Article 16 and they

    25 added to the criminal acts, expanded on them. You have

  102. 1 postponement of repatriation among these changes and

    2 other charges which were not earlier written in Article

    3 16, Chapter 16.

    4 I suppose that that coincided with what

    5 happened in 1990 in Croatia, it was a renaissance of

    6 provisions or a modernisation of provisions originating

    7 in 1990 -- 1992 because provisions from 1977 followed

    8 the convention signed by Yugoslavia and which

    9 Yugoslavia had to incorporate in Chapter 16.

    10 Q. Yes, quite so, Professor, and I think we're

    11 all grateful to be provided with Chapter 16. The point

    12 I am making, though, is relevant to the question of

    13 sentencing, and the law of the SFRY is not very helpful

    14 to us, I think you would agree, because it deals with

    15 the minimum sentence of five years and then the death

    16 penalty which, of course, has no application in this

    17 jurisdiction.

    18 A. I would not be that categorical. For

    19 instance, Chapter 16 begins with Article 141 envisaging

    20 a sentence for genocide, five years or death sentence

    21 or, 142, war crimes against civilian population, five

    22 years or death sentence. You delete the death sentence

    23 because it was later substituted by 20 years.

    24 War crimes against casualties or prisoners,

    25 five-year sentence or death sentence. Crimes against

  103. 1 war prisoners, it says: Will be punished by at least

    2 one year. Then organising a group, ten years. Illegal

    3 murder of prisoners of the other side, ten years. Use

    4 of illegal unlawful means of fighting, at least one

    5 year, maximum 15 years --

    6 Q. I can see entirely, Professor, that there are

    7 penalties, but the point I was trying to make was

    8 that --

    9 A. I just wanted to help you with your earlier

    10 question.

    11 Q. And I'm grateful, Professor. Professor, you

    12 touched on momentarily the issue of intent under the

    13 law of the former Yugoslavia, and if I understood what

    14 you said previously, that under the criminal code of

    15 the former Yugoslavia, you didn't have premeditation as

    16 such. You had two levels of intent, one was intent and

    17 the other was possible criminal intent, which was a

    18 species of negligence.

    19 A. I must correct myself if I was imprecise.

    20 For a criminal act in the SFRY and now, premeditation

    21 and guilt have to be components, and culpability has

    22 two components: intent and negligence, whereas sanity

    23 has always to be present, complete or reduced or moral

    24 insanity, whichever.

    25 So there is always intent and negligence when

  104. 1 we speak about a criminal act. I don't think it is

    2 different in any other country. A whole series of

    3 Italian criminal law experts supported the theory that

    4 intent has to exist.

    5 We, in the SFRY, did not have the concept of

    6 premeditation. Some other countries have it. I don't

    7 know whether it is good or bad, but we do not have

    8 premeditation as a concept. Perhaps it is a useful

    9 gradation of intent, but we don't have it. We just

    10 have intent and negligence.

    11 There are, however, qualifications, such as

    12 possible intent. For instance, a person driving a car

    13 without brakes and with shaven tyres, and the person

    14 drives slowly thinking he can manage to drive his aunt

    15 to the railway station without any accident; however,

    16 the accident happens. But that is the possible intent.

    17 So even intent and negligence have their

    18 gradation. You have conscious and unconscious intent

    19 or negligence. You have a woman working in the lab and

    20 handling, without enough care, explosive gas which

    21 causes an accident. If an unqualified person, such as

    22 a char lady, handles things in the lab and causes the

    23 same thing, her guilty, her culpability would be

    24 different. She is unqualified.

    25 Q. Would you be surprised if I said to you,

  105. 1 Professor, that in some jurisdictions, negligence

    2 cannot be the basis of criminal liability?

    3 A. I would like to live in such a jurisdiction.

    4 But, you know, we have murder out of negligence. You

    5 have a person sitting in a train. A heavy suitcase

    6 from the opposite side falls on the head of a child

    7 sitting underneath and the child dies. I don't think

    8 that the person would be saved from criminal charges

    9 even under such a jurisdiction.

    10 For instance, you answer for murder for

    11 injuring peace of Queen.

    12 THE INTERPRETER: The Queen's peace, I

    13 believe the doctor wanted to say.

    14 A. Or, as somebody said, it doesn't matter --

    15 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, we lost the

    16 Professor. I am honestly sorry.

    17 MR. NIEMANN:

    18 Q. Professor, you provided us with some

    19 statistical information in your report relating from

    20 the period 1980 to 1990, and I think these were

    21 offences under Chapter 16, prosecutions for offences

    22 under Chapter 16. Do you know what gave rise to these

    23 cases? Were these World War II cases, or what was the

    24 background to them?

    25 A. For some of the cases I know, especially

  106. 1 since Mr. Fila and his office dealt with some of those

    2 cases, there are very complex matters involved and

    3 there are also foolish cases.

    4 I know of a case where a person came to

    5 Bosnia and asked the municipality to issue him with a

    6 certificate that he was in an SS division during the

    7 war so that he could obtain a pension in Germany. Of

    8 course, he was detained in Belgrade and convicted to

    9 10, 15 years. So that even judges asked him, "How on

    10 earth did you think of such a stupid thing to do?"

    11 However, there were also cases where people

    12 thought that the Statute of Limitations expired and

    13 there were comparisons of photographs involved. In one

    14 case, I was asked as a forensic expert to define by an

    15 ear whether this man was the one who cut people's

    16 throats.

    17 For instance, also the Sakic person who is

    18 being delivered to Croatia, some people simply wanted

    19 to go back and die in their own homeland. Then there

    20 were also cases when criminals were caught when they

    21 came to their parents' funerals or to sell their

    22 houses; anecdotal cases, in fact, where the less

    23 serious sentences concerned cases with families,

    24 lovers, et cetera.

    25 I wanted to take cases from 1977 to 1990, but

  107. 1 there were no such cases until '88. In '78, there were

    2 only two cases of this kind. From '87 to '90, I did

    3 not find a single case that would fit the description.

    4 Q. So it would be fair if I was to say that most

    5 of the cases that would have been the subject of your

    6 cumulative table here, from 1980 to 1987, were cases

    7 which arose out of the events of World War II? It

    8 doesn't matter where, but during the course of World

    9 War II?

    10 A. Certainly.

    11 Q. Did you have an opportunity --

    12 A. They were very old. Take that into account.

    13 Forty plus years since the war.

    14 Q. Did you have an opportunity to do any study

    15 or carry out any analysis of any cases that may have

    16 arisen as a consequence of this most recent conflict

    17 from 1991 onwards? Have you seen any prosecutions for

    18 war crimes or genocide in relation to those events?

    19 A. There have been a few cases of prosecution,

    20 and I had the pleasure of leading a project titled

    21 "Women in the War." It is a very moving book.

    22 You must understand, Mr. Prosecutor, that

    23 Serbs are studying those cases which were against them,

    24 as the other side studied crimes against that side.

    25 The project I am talking about involves 80 women raped

  108. 1 by mostly Muslims but also Croats. Women's names are

    2 not mentioned, only code names are used. At the

    3 promotion of the book, the women spoke of very moving

    4 details, stories about rape being used as a ticket out,

    5 and all the 80 women attended the promotion. A couple

    6 of them reconciled themselves to all the consequences,

    7 they told us their real names, and they stood up and

    8 said, "Yes, I was raped. I would have done anything to

    9 save my child which slept nearby. I stood up and

    10 kissed their hands."

    11 Q. Professor, yes, what I was mainly interested

    12 in was cases which had gone through the process and

    13 there had been a conviction and the penalty had been

    14 imposed. Do you know of any cases like that since

    15 1991?

    16 A. Yes, we have some of those cases. We have a

    17 very strange case in Croatia -- I didn't manage to get

    18 the file. I hope it will be sent to me by my

    19 ex-students from Croatia once things calm down. It

    20 involves the murder of ten to twelve soldiers on the

    21 bridge in Korana near Karlovac. The perpetrator was

    22 arrested and tried, but it was established that he was

    23 not guilty by reason of insanity. Things were very bad

    24 for some time but are beginning to improve.

    25 If you know the configuration of Bosnia where

  109. 1 a lot of those things happened, there are places very

    2 high up in the mountains with holes, deep holes, and in

    3 cases of murder, victims were often thrown into those

    4 holes. Later on, heaps of bones were extracted from

    5 those holes. Victims of Croat forces were found,

    6 victims of various other divisions, victims of crimes

    7 of passion. I personally believe it is not okay that

    8 these holes were cemented in former Yugoslavia. It is

    9 almost as if the former regime was afraid that its own

    10 executions would be later discovered. I don't know if

    11 I have answered your question.

    12 But if you wish, I can try to find in Serbia

    13 what you looked for --

    14 Q. Professor, I was merely asking you about

    15 recent cases. We'll move on.

    16 Now, you talked about this concept of

    17 co-perpetrators, aiding and abetting and so forth. I

    18 think you're probably aware that the Tribunal's Statute

    19 and Rules of Procedure has its own regime to deal with

    20 that as well. It doesn't need to depend upon the law

    21 of Yugoslavia. Were you aware of that?

    22 A. I'm aware from the Statute of your court,

    23 which I esteem very highly and wish it success. You

    24 said in one place in the Statute that the court has to

    25 familiarise itself with the law of the country from

  110. 1 which the Defendant originates, and I said I believe

    2 that was right. If you agreed to borrow our concept of

    3 cumulative sentence, I don't know, but we do not have

    4 any other concept and I don't believe anything else is

    5 applied in Europe either.

    6 Q. I just wanted to ask you a question about

    7 that. I want to posit to you a situation and ask you

    8 if you could tell me how a court in the former

    9 Yugoslavia would deal in its sentence with a situation

    10 such as what I'm about to give you. It's an example.

    11 Say you have an offence committed by a large

    12 corporation, a company, and the managing director and

    13 members of the board --

    14 A. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. A company in

    15 Yugoslavia cannot commit a criminal act. We do not

    16 provide for criminal responsibility of legal persons.

    17 Q. Please bear with me, Professor. We'll get

    18 there. The managing director and the members of the

    19 board agree that they wanted to commit a fraud, and

    20 they use the lowly company accountant to actually carry

    21 out the mechanics of the commission of the fraud.

    22 If it came to sentencing, who would receive

    23 the greater sentence: the managing director and

    24 members of the board, or would it be the accountant?

    25 A. First of all, during the trial, we would have

  111. 1 to establish the identity of the perpetrator and his

    2 intent, and then we would have to establish who he was

    3 instigated by, who he was enabled by, and who aided and

    4 abetted him. We often meet situations in our practice

    5 where the director enters a liaison with a deputy chief

    6 accountant. He provides her with the papers, she uses

    7 those papers to actually get disbursements of money,

    8 and he is often -- in such cases, it is often difficult

    9 to differentiate between the perpetrator and the

    10 abettor. The director cannot be responsible for

    11 everything.

    12 Q. I see. So would it be fair to say that --

    13 assuming you can prove the board and managing director

    14 actually agreed that this crime would be committed and

    15 then directed the accountant to commit it, you would

    16 agree with me that the board and managing director

    17 would be the most culpable criminally, wouldn't you?

    18 That would be the normal position?

    19 A. The one who allows him to act in this way and

    20 whose knowledge is involved would be the most guilty,

    21 but a whole number of people would be guilty. This

    22 category of economic crimes, white collar crimes, are

    23 very widespread now. In such cases, perpetrators, the

    24 real perpetrators, protect themselves very well, and it

    25 is usually the small fry who gets sentenced.

  112. 1 Q. Finally, one last question: Does the Statute

    2 of Limitations apply to Chapter 16 offences?

    3 A. No.

    4 MR. NIEMANN: No further questions.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila?

    6 MR. FILA: Your Honour, I just wish to assist

    7 so I don't have any questions. If it would be of

    8 interest to the court to establish the forms of

    9 culpability, intent, premeditation, and so forth, the

    10 Professor has it right here in the introduction to the

    11 penal code and he can read it, and it says quite

    12 clearly there what is negligence, what is

    13 premeditation, what is intent. He can read it. It's

    14 very short.

    15 If, of course, the court is interested in

    16 it. That would be the answer to a number of the

    17 questions posed by my esteemed colleague, Mr. Niemann.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Actually, I don't

    19 think it's particularly relevant to the court, more so

    20 because we, under our own Statute and the customary

    21 international law and international criminal law, we

    22 have to proceed on the basis of international law

    23 notions. In addition, I have realised that Professor

    24 Aleksic is as familiar as I am with a masterpiece,

    25 Jescheck, what I consider a masterpiece in criminal

  113. 1 law, and I'm sure also Mr. Waespi is familiar with

    2 that, in addition to Mr. Fila who actually mentioned

    3 Jescheck in one of his briefs, so we know all the basic

    4 notions prevailing in the best legal literature in

    5 continental Europe.

    6 We should now take a break, but I have three

    7 questions. I wonder whether you would like -- if I can

    8 ask you these three questions?

    9 A. Do you want me to answer today or tomorrow?

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: No, no, no, no. The question

    11 was not tomorrow. Right away or after the break in 20

    12 minutes.

    13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, you seem to be an

    14 ally of my wife. You want to have me back home as soon

    15 as possible.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. In any case, probably

    17 it's better to rise now for 20 minutes and then we go

    18 on with our questions.

    19 MR. NIEMANN: I'm sorry, Your Honours. May I

    20 be excused after the break? I have another matter in

    21 another court. Thank you.

    22 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

    23 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Professor Aleksic, I have,

    25 actually, three questions. First of all, I understand

  114. 1 that previously, prior to 1993, most crimes provided

    2 for in Chapter 16 carried a sentence which could go

    3 from five years in prison to 20 years or death

    4 penalty. So I want to understand the rationale behind

    5 this choice, maximum of 20 years or, as an alternative,

    6 the death penalty. So no provision was made for, say,

    7 an imprisonment of 25 years or 30 years or life

    8 imprisonment and so on. What was the rationale behind

    9 this lack of -- and provisioned this particular point?

    10 A. Well, the system of criminal sanctions in the

    11 law of the SFRY ranged from very low, very light

    12 sentences for, I think, six months in prison up to 15

    13 years. I think that was the law in SFRY. In

    14 exceptional circumstances with very serious criminal

    15 offences, in addition to the 15 years imprisonment,

    16 there was the death penalty which was equal to 15 years

    17 imprisonment. But since our legislator's never

    18 directed the judges to issue sentences but allowed them

    19 to apply mitigating and aggravating circumstances, even

    20 in this most serious sentence, the legislators provided

    21 the alternative, death penalty or 20 years. So the

    22 sentence of 20 years imprisonment does not exist,

    23 according to that law. We are now talking about the

    24 period from 1993 forward.

    25 In 1993, the death penalty was abolished and

  115. 1 the 20 years imprisonment sentence remained. But I

    2 have to tell you once again, Mr. Fila has more practice

    3 than myself, so he probably knows more about it than

    4 me, but the sentence was never 16, 17 or 18 years. It

    5 was either 15 or 20 years. So 15 and 20 years, there

    6 was a vacuum in between those two sentences. So the

    7 maximum sentence was 15 years imprisonment, and the

    8 minimum would be three months and maybe even less.

    9 And when the death penalty was given, it

    10 could be commuted so the 20 years imprisonment was the

    11 commuted sentence, because there was some ray of hope

    12 that the convict could be rehabilitated. In 1993, the

    13 death penalty was abolished and the 20 years

    14 imprisonment remained automatically, but it was not the

    15 range up to 20 years. It was up to 15 years and then

    16 there was this 20 years imprisonment. I don't know if

    17 I made myself clear.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: No, probably I didn't make

    19 myself clear, because I was wondering why the maximum

    20 imprisonment is 20 years and why there's no -- is there

    21 any reason why or a particular reason why before '93,

    22 as I say, for the most horrendous crimes, say, somebody

    23 killing 50 people, an uncommon crime, without any

    24 relation with war or armed conflict; so for this set of

    25 crimes, a multiple crime, a murder, you would get

  116. 1 either 20 years or a death sentence, whereas in most

    2 European countries on continental Europe, you have,

    3 say, a maximum life imprisonment or, say, 30 years, 35

    4 years. So why, therefore, is there this gap between --

    5 nothing beyond 20 years or life imprisonment?

    6 Actually, I read in the English translation

    7 two judgements delivered by a military tribunal in

    8 Belgrade in early '93, I think, for war crimes

    9 committed by Croats, and there some of them were

    10 sentenced to 20 years, some to 15, and one or two to a

    11 death sentence, and they were executed. So, again, I'm

    12 lost to understand the rationale behind this particular

    13 way of providing for sentence, for penalties.

    14 A. I have to defend my Professor Srzentic. He

    15 was the legislator involved in creating this law. In

    16 the long discussion, private discussions that we held,

    17 he told me certain things, and I think they will serve

    18 to clarify this point.

    19 First of all, we thought that today it is

    20 very hard to defend the existence of the death

    21 penalty. But due to certain specific factors, we

    22 allowed it. I have to tell you that the death penalty

    23 was given very rarely. There is a statistical report

    24 of the statistical office of Yugoslavia regarding the

    25 death penalty. I can provide you with a copy of it. I

  117. 1 have it here. They showed very clearly that nolens

    2 volens we did not have the death penalty, although

    3 there were some cases. In Slovenia, there hadn't been

    4 a case of the death penalty for over 40 years; and even

    5 in Montenegro, there weren't that many death penalties

    6 given. So the legislators took the following stand:

    7 The death penalty is something horrible, but at this

    8 stage of our development of the criminal system, we

    9 have to keep it because our population still has this

    10 system of an eye for an eye.

    11 Second thing, when the death penalty was to

    12 be replaced by the life imprisonment, the associations

    13 of penologists in Yugoslavia felt that this was even

    14 worse than murder, than killing a person, because it

    15 was dying by inches. In particular, the provisions in

    16 some other jurisdictions which stated that a person

    17 could not apply for parole before 20 years of his life

    18 sentence, and even in some cases, there was life

    19 sentence without parole. We thought it was horrible so

    20 we said that the death penalty should exist, and if it

    21 is too harsh a sentence, it should be replaced by 20

    22 years.

    23 This is something that makes other people

    24 confused because they think that we have the sentence

    25 of 20 years imprisonment. We do not have this

  118. 1 sentence, in effect. Even those people who examined

    2 students in criminal law, when they are in a bad mood,

    3 they ask the students, "What's the maximum prison

    4 sentence in Yugoslavia?" And if the person says "20

    5 years," he fails the exam.

    6 I hope that now you understand what the

    7 situation is. But I can give you an explanation for

    8 1993. The death penalty was abolished and 20 years

    9 remained. And the new penal code, which is being

    10 drafted, there are certain tendencies for 30 years

    11 imprisonment and so forth. In Croatia, it is the case

    12 already.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. My second

    14 question relates to what you said about aiding and

    15 abetting. I know, of course, that you don't have this

    16 notion, which is typical of common law countries. In

    17 continental European countries, of course, we have the

    18 notion of complicity which is, to some extent,

    19 broader.

    20 However, talking of aiding, you said that in

    21 Yugoslav law intent is required for the aiding to be

    22 regarded as a crime. I don't know whether this is a

    23 question of translation, whether you really require

    24 that the aider should have the intent to commit a crime

    25 or a simple knowledge is sufficient.

  119. 1 Let me give you an example which is taken

    2 from the case law of war crimes tribunals relating to

    3 the Second World War. The case of some people, some

    4 military officers go into a place with intent of

    5 actually arresting or even killing three POW's,

    6 prisoners of war. Now, the question arose whether the

    7 driver who drove them to that particular place where

    8 they shot the three enemy officers, whether the driver

    9 was aiding and abetting the crime. And the court said

    10 that what was crucial was whether they had the

    11 knowledge, whether the driver was aware that he was

    12 driving those people to go there and to arrest and

    13 possibly shoot them. And if he was not aware, then he

    14 was not, in a way, an accomplis. And, actually, one of

    15 them was not found guilty because he was not aware at

    16 all. In this case, therefore, knowledge is crucial,

    17 not criminal intent. The driver had no intention

    18 because he was simply unaware of the purpose of that

    19 trip to a particular place.

    20 I wonder whether, therefore, when you, on

    21 purpose, referred to aiding for criminal intent or

    22 intention or whether, under Yugoslav law, knowledge is

    23 sufficient?

    24 A. In this expert opinion, which I had the

    25 liberty to provide to you, I wrote down that when it

  120. 1 comes to aiding, it can defined as the intentional

    2 provision of assistance to the perpetrator in the

    3 commission of the act that was actually committed. In

    4 elaborating this premise, I wrote that the act of the

    5 aider must be the contribution to the commission of the

    6 act, they must have an effect on the commission of the

    7 act committed by the perpetrator and have an effect on

    8 the commission. This does not mean, I'm quoting from

    9 my own report, that in addition to the acts of aiding,

    10 which had a causal relationship to the commission of

    11 the crime, in accordance with the formula condictio

    12 sine qua non, that it means that the act would not be

    13 realised or committed.

    14 It is too much to require of an aider to

    15 increase the chances. We are looking for the efficient

    16 support of the perpetrator and the creation of

    17 favourable conditions. I gave you an example where I

    18 go to see my friend. I take him out for a walk, and I

    19 allow my other friend to burgle his place. I don't

    20 know if that's enough.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I think we are

    22 short on time, so I will refrain from asking you a

    23 third question which, in any case, was rather minor. I

    24 wonder whether there are any other questions? There's

    25 no objection to our witness being released.

  121. 1 Thank you, Professor, for coming here to give

    2 evidence in court. You may now be released. Thank you

    3 so much.

    4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

    5 (The witness withdrew)

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: We will now move to the

    7 Prosecution witness.

    8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Your Honour, at this

    9 time, we would call Vladimir Dzuro.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. And we were given

    11 his witness statement.

    12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we provided the

    13 report that he completed. It's not actually in the

    14 form of a statement but it is a signed report.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    16 MR. FILA: While we're waiting, Your Honours,

    17 would it be possible for the Prosecutor to give me

    18 photographs which at least allow us to see something

    19 and not just black marks? Do you have photographs in

    20 colour, by any chance?

    21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, yes, we will be

    22 providing photographs during the course of his

    23 testimony. If you would like them in advance, we can

    24 provide that.

    25 MR. FILA: Yes, if possible. I apologise,

  122. 1 but it is really impossible for me to follow. The

    2 quality is really horrible.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: I agree with you, Mr. Fila.

    4 I also had the same problem, but probably if the

    5 Prosecutor could be so kind as to provide us with

    6 colour photographs.

    7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour.

    8 Would you, as well, like coloured photographs now or do

    9 you want it to be done as we go through the testimony?

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: As we go through the

    11 testimony, all right, if it is fine with Mr. Fila.

    12 MR. FILA: No, it would be better for me to

    13 receive them right now so that I am able to follow. It

    14 really would be better.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: At least for Mr. Fila, it is

    16 important, yes.

    17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour. We

    18 were just trying to do it in a manner where we could

    19 keep them straight and so that they would be organised,

    20 because the photographs are very, very similar. But we

    21 will certainly provide copies to Mr. Fila.

    22 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    23 MR. FILA: Your Honours, these are the

    24 photographs that you gave to me. So I would just like

    25 to have coloured photographs of those same

  123. 1 photographs. I think that Mr. Dzuro took those

    2 photographs.

    3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we will provide

    4 him copies of everything that will be submitted during

    5 the course of Mr. Dzuro's testimony.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    7 MR. WILLIAMSON: This may take us just a

    8 moment to go through and organise this but we will.

    9 (The witness entered court)

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Good afternoon.

    11 Could you please make the solemn declaration?

    12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    13 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

    14 truth.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be

    16 seated.

    17 These photographs, I mean, they also relate

    18 to the report of expert witness Tabbush, the same

    19 photographs, I think?

    20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, there are --

    21 some of the photographs were used by Mr. Tabbush as

    22 well. Most of them will come in through Mr. Dzuro and

    23 will already have a reference number by the time

    24 Mr. Tabbush testifies. But there may possibly be some

    25 additional photographs at that time that we would

  124. 1 introduce.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Tabbush will be tomorrow?

    3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, that's correct, Your

    4 Honour. We have almost completed this process with the

    5 photographs.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.


    8 Examined by Mr. Williamson:

    9 Q. Mr. Dzuro, where are you currently employed?

    10 A. I work for the Office of the Prosecutor of

    11 the International War Crimes Tribunal.

    12 Q. What is your job assignment within the Office

    13 of the Prosecutor?

    14 A. I work as an investigator.

    15 Q. How long have you been affiliated with the

    16 Office of the Prosecutor?

    17 A. I started to work for the Office of the

    18 Prosecutor in April 1995.

    19 Q. Prior to coming to the Tribunal, where were

    20 you employed?

    21 A. Since 1993, I worked for the Czech Police

    22 Force as a policeman, then as an investigator. And

    23 then further I was assigned as a senior special agent

    24 at INTERPOL, National Central Bureau of INTERPOL,

    25 Prague.

  125. 1 Q. Did you also have opportunity to work in the

    2 former Yugoslavia for some period when you were still

    3 affiliated with the Czech Police?

    4 A. That's correct. Since February 1994 until

    5 March 1995, I worked as a senior secretary officer as

    6 the chief of the field secretary office in Sarajevo in

    7 Bosnia.

    8 Q. Mr. Dzuro, at this time I'm going to show you

    9 a document which I'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit 214,

    10 I believe, and I would like for you to look at this.

    11 THE INTERPRETER: If a pause could please be

    12 made between question and answer?


    14 Q. Did you hear that, Mr. Dzuro?

    15 A. Yes, I did.

    16 Q. Is this a report that you prepared in

    17 connection with an investigation that you've conducted

    18 in relation to the alibi videotape which is marked as

    19 Defence Exhibit 2?

    20 A. That's correct, I did.

    21 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would tender this report

    22 now as Prosecutor's Exhibit 214.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Any objection, Mr. Fila?

    24 MR. FILA: No.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

  126. 1 MR. WILLIAMSON:

    2 Q. Mr. Dzuro, since coming to the Tribunal, have

    3 you been involved in the investigation of war crimes

    4 which occurred in the Vukovar region of Croatia?

    5 A. That's correct. Since the first time I

    6 arrived to the Tribunal and was assigned as an

    7 investigator, I worked almost exclusively on the crimes

    8 committed in the Vukovar area.

    9 Q. In that capacity, did you participate in an

    10 interview of Mr. Dokmanovic which took place at

    11 Scheveningen prison on the 26th and 27th of November of

    12 last year?

    13 A. That's right. I did, yes.

    14 Q. At this interview, did you become aware in

    15 general terms of the alibi defence that Mr. Dokmanovic

    16 was going to present?

    17 A. That's correct.

    18 Q. During the course of that interview, did you

    19 also become aware of a videotape which the Defence

    20 intended to use in support of its alibi?

    21 A. Yes, I think it was on the 26th when, for the

    22 first time, I heard about the tape, and Mr. Dokmanovic

    23 and Mr. Fila were saying that it would be possible to

    24 view it at some stage. And we agreed that on the 27th,

    25 the next day, we would bring the VCR and television,

  127. 1 because there was no TV in the prison that was

    2 available for us. So we brought the television there.

    3 But in the end, we didn't have a chance to view the

    4 tape because Mr. Dokmanovic and Mr. Fila decided

    5 otherwise.

    6 Q. Did you subsequently have an opportunity to

    7 view the videotape?

    8 A. Yes, I did.

    9 THE INTERPRETER: Will you please make an

    10 actual pause before the answer, please?

    11 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

    12 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have the converse this

    13 time.

    14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry for that.

    15 MR. WILLIAMSON: My apologies to Mr. Fila.

    16 We know how it feels on the other side. Sorry about

    17 that.

    18 Q. When you did have an opportunity to view this

    19 videotape, did you recognise the locations which were

    20 depicted in it?

    21 A. Yes, in general terms, yes. Sorry, in

    22 general terms, yes, I did.

    23 Q. In the three years that you've been

    24 affiliated with the Office of the Prosecutor, have you

    25 had occasion to familiarise yourself with the Vukovar

  128. 1 area?

    2 A. Yes, since August 1996, I was travelling to

    3 Vukovar on a regular basis. Since 1996 in August, I

    4 arrived for the first time in Vukovar, and the reason

    5 why I travelled there was that I participated in

    6 exhumations of the mass grave at Ovcara. And then

    7 since that time on, I was travelling to Vukovar, as I

    8 say, on a regular basis to interview the witnesses

    9 there.

    10 Q. Mr. Dzuro, the court reporter has also asked

    11 if you can slow down a little bit.

    12 A. I'll try.

    13 Q. So would it be fair to say that you know the

    14 Vukovar area quite well?

    15 A. Yeah, that's correct.

    16 Q. Now, after the videotape was received by the

    17 Prosecution and initially viewed, were you assigned to

    18 further investigate what was depicted on the tape?

    19 A. Yes, I was asked by the Prosecutor to make

    20 further examination to the tape.

    21 Q. What exactly did you set out to do in this

    22 regard?

    23 A. First, I studied the map of the Vukovar

    24 region and the city plan of Vukovar and tried to locate

    25 the route that Mr. Dokmanovic and the group with him

  129. 1 took on the 20th of November. Then I went to this TV

    2 unit at the ICTY and, together with my colleague, I

    3 printed a number of stills off of this video.

    4 Q. I assume, Mr. Dzuro, that the stills were

    5 printed at the time before the video unit ran out of

    6 copying paper to do this?

    7 A. Yes, I have to admit that I actually caused

    8 the problem with that because there was a large number

    9 of the prints we made, and they didn't have a supply of

    10 the paper. So I probably have to apologise to the

    11 court.

    12 Q. At this time, I would like to show you a

    13 photograph and, if you can, please identify this.

    14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I will mark this first

    15 photograph as Prosecutor's Exhibit 215.

    16 Q. Mr. Dzuro, do you recognise this photograph?

    17 A. Yes, that's one of the video stills, the

    18 stills I took from the Defence video, and it actually

    19 shows the scene at 15.36 when the car is leaving

    20 Vukovar. You can see the tree which is very -- is

    21 important on the picture, because as a hole, in the top

    22 part of the tree, you can see also the electric post on

    23 the right side of the road. And then it's almost

    24 invisible, but there are two white posts which I will

    25 refer to in my future testimony. That's why I took

  130. 1 this still because it shows the end of Vukovar.

    2 Q. I would like you to take a look at the next

    3 photograph which is marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit

    4 216.

    5 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I obviously received

    6 all those photographs, but it would be nice if

    7 Mr. Williamson could just lift the relevant photograph

    8 up so that we can see which photograph we are talking

    9 about, or to use the ELMO.

    10 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it would be -- I

    11 understand Mr. Fila's suggestion. I think perhaps it

    12 would be better to display them on the ELMO and then

    13 it's clear what we're talking about.

    14 Q. Perhaps, Mr. Dzuro, if we can go back for

    15 just a moment to the first photograph, 215, and if you

    16 can point out on here the characteristics that you just

    17 described?

    18 A. I was talking about a tree which is on the

    19 right side of the road if you head from Vukovar south

    20 towards Negoslavci, and in particular, about the top

    21 part of the tree with the hole in the middle, and also

    22 the electric post here in the field and you can see

    23 here the two white posts (indicated).

    24 Q. Now, if you would, look at the next

    25 photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit

  131. 1 216, and if you could indicate what this is?

    2 A. This photograph is a little bit further down

    3 the road. We passed all of the trees on the right

    4 side, but here you can see more clearly these two white

    5 posts.

    6 Q. Very well --

    7 A. And these pole lines -- I mean, the electric

    8 posts on the right side and on the left side.

    9 Q. At this time, I would like for you to view

    10 the next photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's

    11 Exhibit 217, and again, if you can display this on the

    12 ELMO, please, and explain what is depicted in this

    13 picture?

    14 A. This is an image that was depicted at 15.42

    15 on the Defence video. You can see the roof of the

    16 building with a big gable facing the road. There is a

    17 window on the upper part and then you've got a bus

    18 which is in between the gentleman who made the film and

    19 the building. You can also see the trees which are

    20 directly in front of the house, with the branches.

    21 Q. At this time, I would like for you to look at

    22 the next photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's

    23 Exhibit 218.

    24 In relation to this photograph, Mr. Dzuro, I

    25 have provided you also with a copy of this, as has been

  132. 1 provided to everyone else. Do you know where the

    2 original of this is?

    3 A. The original of the still I gave to

    4 Mr. Tabbush because he used it for his analysis, for

    5 his expertise, and I believe it is still in his

    6 possession.

    7 Q. Can you explain to the court what is depicted

    8 in this photograph at 218?

    9 A. This photograph is very similar to the

    10 previous one, again with a roof, the window, and the

    11 bus travelling from in between the cameraman and the

    12 building. Again, the tree, different angle, slightly

    13 different angle with the branches.

    14 Q. I would like for you to look at the next

    15 photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit

    16 219, and if you can explain what is depicted in this

    17 photograph?

    18 A. The photograph, as you can see, it is almost

    19 the same as the previous one, but importantly it is in

    20 black and white because we were asked by Mr. Tabbush to

    21 produce the photograph in black and white because it

    22 shows better the branches of the tree.

    23 Q. I would like for you now to look at the next

    24 photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit

    25 220.

  133. 1 A. This is one of the first stills I took from

    2 -- the first set of stills I took from the video. You

    3 can see that it's very hazy, and it shows the building

    4 which, on a previous photograph, we just saw the roof

    5 of that. Here we can see more of that building with

    6 the boarded windows on the upper part and then the

    7 tree, the branches, and again the bus passing in

    8 between the cameraman and the building.

    9 Q. Again, in relation to photographs 219 and

    10 220, just as 218, I have only provided copies to you,

    11 so is the situation the same with these two exhibits

    12 that Mr. Tabbush also has the originals?

    13 A. That's correct, Mr. Tabbush has the original

    14 of this still.

    15 Q. At this time, I would show you the next

    16 photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit

    17 221. Can you explain what is depicted in this

    18 photograph, please?

    19 A. Again, this is the house, what I was

    20 referring to before, with the mid-roof gable facing the

    21 road with the windows, the tree -- with the window and

    22 tree branches and the bus. The difference between the

    23 previous one and this one is that we tried to enhance

    24 the quality of that.

    25 Q. Where was the enhancement for this done?

  134. 1 A. It was at the FBI laboratories in Quantico,

    2 Virginia, in the United States of America.

    3 Q. Finally, I would like for you to look at the

    4 last photograph of the video stills which we will mark

    5 as Prosecutor's Exhibit 222, and again this is a

    6 situation where there is no original with this, these

    7 are just copies. Is the original of this one also with

    8 Mr. Tabbush?

    9 A. That is correct.

    10 Q. Mr. Dzuro, can you explain what is depicted

    11 in this photograph, please?

    12 A. This is probably one of the last scenes which

    13 you can see at 15.42. You can see the road here with

    14 the buses. What is important, if you can focus on this

    15 area on the right-hand side of the road, we have a

    16 traffic sign here, there's an electrical or telephone

    17 post here, and then in this area, you can see very

    18 distinctive top part of the tree right behind the buses

    19 (indicated).

    20 Q. Is there also a small shed which is depicted

    21 in this photograph?

    22 A. That's correct. It's just next to the

    23 traffic sign on the right. You can see a little bit

    24 white.

    25 Q. Does there appear to be something in front of

  135. 1 the shed?

    2 A. It appears to be a truck or the trolley of

    3 the truck. You can see the wheels here.

    4 Q. And, Mr. Dzuro, were all of these video

    5 stills that we have just viewed, numbers 216 to 222,

    6 were all of these made from the videotape which has

    7 been marked as Defence Exhibit 2?

    8 A. Yes, it was.

    9 MR. WILLIAMSON: At this time, I would tender

    10 these video stills as Prosecutor's Exhibits 215 through

    11 222.

    12 Q. Now, Mr. Dzuro, at some point in time, did

    13 you travel back to Vukovar in order to assist in your

    14 determination of what locations and objects were

    15 depicted on the videotape?

    16 A. Yes, I did.

    17 Q. When was this?

    18 A. It was the beginning of February 1998.

    19 Q. At that time, did you take the video stills

    20 with you when you went to Vukovar?

    21 A. Yes, I did, and also I took the map.

    22 Q. What did you do when you arrived in Vukovar

    23 to try to locate some of these locations?

    24 A. First I travelled to the centre of Vukovar,

    25 and from there, I travelled south towards Negoslavci on

  136. 1 the road, and I inspected the buildings on the right

    2 side, on the left side of the road.

    3 Q. During the course of travelling from the

    4 centre of Vukovar to Negoslavci, were you able to --

    5 before I ask that, let me rephrase this.

    6 Did you only go as far as Negoslavci, or did

    7 you continue to other locations as well?

    8 A. Yes, I travelled first to Negoslavci and then

    9 I continued to Orolik and Sidski Banovci on the same

    10 road.

    11 Q. During this travel between the centre of

    12 Vukovar and Sidski Banovci, were you able to find the

    13 various locations which are shown on the videotape?

    14 A. Yes, I did.

    15 Q. Have you had an opportunity to match up the

    16 times and locations depicted on the videotape with the

    17 actual locations on a map?

    18 A. Yes, I did.

    19 Q. Could you please now look at the map of the

    20 Vukovar-Negoslavci area, which we will mark as

    21 Prosecutor's Exhibit 223?

    22 Again, Mr. Dzuro, I would ask, when you

    23 receive this, if you can display this on the ELMO as

    24 well?

    25 Mr. Dzuro, have you seen this map before?

  137. 1 A. Yes, I have.

    2 Q. Have you already identified certain locations

    3 on this map and indicated what those locations are?

    4 A. Yes, I have. Actually, this is just a part

    5 of the map which I used because it shows all the

    6 locations which were important for my investigation,

    7 and I photocopied that map and marked various locations

    8 on this map.

    9 Q. Now, what I would like to do is show you

    10 portions of the videotape which is marked as Defence

    11 Exhibit 2, and if you would be able perhaps to indicate

    12 on the ELMO what is being depicted? I understand that

    13 it's impossible to view the videotape and the map at

    14 the same time, so what we will do is we will show you a

    15 portion of the videotape, and then if you can just take

    16 the marker and trace on the map where we have seen, and

    17 perhaps if this can be shifted down just a little bit

    18 where you are covering -- well, I think that's about as

    19 far as -- that's good. Where it goes up to right at

    20 the centre of Vukovar.

    21 At this time, then, I would ask that the

    22 videotape, Defence Exhibit 2, be displayed starting at

    23 15.17, please?

    24 Your Honours, I apologise for the delay, but

    25 I'm afraid it's necessary to make his testimony clear

  138. 1 to go through in order so ...

    2 (Videotape played)

    3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think if we can go back a

    4 little bit to 15.17, please?

    5 (Videotape played)

    6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I don't have a

    7 signal on the monitor. Fine.

    8 Freeze the tape now, please.

    9 Q. I think we have to go through the segment

    10 perhaps because it requires a switch over to the ELMO,

    11 if that's correct, which takes a moment of time. Very

    12 well. We can do that.

    13 All right. If you can explain where we have

    14 seen up until this point?

    15 A. The vehicle left VELEPROMET, which is located

    16 here, and drove north toward the centre of Vukovar, and

    17 I left -- I asked for freezing of the tape somewhere in

    18 this area (indicated). The road actually goes

    19 downhill. This is the top, this crossing, and it goes

    20 downhill toward the centre of Vukovar. So now we are

    21 in that curve here.

    22 Q. If you can move the map down just a little

    23 bit? I think that's fine there now. At that point,

    24 where the vehicle is travelling, it is travelling in a

    25 northerly direction; is that correct?

  139. 1 A. That's correct. It travels in a north

    2 direction towards the centre of Vukovar.

    3 Q. Now if we can continue with the videotape,

    4 please?

    5 (Videotape played)

    6 A. Freeze it now, please. A bit backward?

    7 Stop. Stop it.

    8 Q. And, again, if you can refer on the map to

    9 where this is located, please?

    10 A. This is the Orthodox church which is marked

    11 on the map here.

    12 Q. This is the point where it is stopped, is

    13 right before the Orthodox church; is that correct?

    14 A. That's correct. Orthodox church will be on

    15 the right side, which will be on the corner of the

    16 building.

    17 Q. If we can continue the video now? On the

    18 map, just for clarity purposes, the Orthodox church is

    19 marked by the red dot, is that correct, right at the

    20 very top before the map is discontinued?

    21 A. That is correct.

    22 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you can continue the

    23 video now, please?

    24 (Videotape played)

    25 MR. WILLIAMSON: At this time, I would ask

  140. 1 that the video be moved ahead to 15.30, please.

    2 Q. Mr. Dzuro, is it fair to say that in the

    3 period between 15.20 and 15.30 that the group is in the

    4 centre of Vukovar, which is just right off of the area

    5 that is depicted on this map?

    6 A. Yes, that's correct.

    7 Q. And then if we can start again at 15.30 as

    8 the vehicle is leaving the centre of Vukovar, and at

    9 that point, if you can trace the route as it returns

    10 back south?

    11 (Videotape played)

    12 A. Freeze it, please.

    13 Q. If we can go back to the map?

    14 A. Again, the Orthodox church, now it's on the

    15 left side of the road because the car is travelling in

    16 the south direction towards Negoslavci, so, yes, by the

    17 same church, the red spot on the map.

    18 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we can continue the tape,

    19 please?

    20 (Videotape played)

    21 A. Freeze it now, please? A little bit back?

    22 That's it. Stop.

    23 Q. If we can go to the map, please?

    24 A. The car is moving on that road south, and the

    25 chapel you can see on the left side is right here by

  141. 1 the crossing. You see the crossing is here and the

    2 chapel is right here.

    3 Q. The chapel is depicted on the map again by a

    4 small red dot; is that correct?

    5 A. Yes, that's correct.

    6 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we can continue the video

    7 now, please?

    8 (Videotape played)

    9 A. Freeze it, please. May I continue?

    10 Q. Yes, please, if you would?

    11 A. The camera is looking actually in this

    12 direction towards the street, and the car, the Red

    13 Cross car, is parked on the corner of this

    14 intersection.

    15 Q. If we can continue the video now, please?

    16 (Videotape played)

    17 A. Freeze it now, please.

    18 Q. Mr. Dzuro, if you can indicate where that is

    19 on the map, please?

    20 A. This is the tree I showed previously on the

    21 still. This tree is right here.

    22 Q. The mulberry tree, being the tree with what

    23 appears to be the hole in it; is that correct?

    24 A. Yes, that's correct.

    25 Q. Okay. Again, if you can refer to the map,

  142. 1 and then -- or perhaps I guess the video can start back

    2 again at this point, please.

    3 (Videotape played)

    4 A. Freeze it. Backward, please. This is the

    5 roof of the house I was referring previously on the

    6 still I took from the video.

    7 Q. Before we get to that, Mr. Dzuro, if we can,

    8 perhaps if we can go back right to the point where it

    9 ends at 15.36 and freeze it there, the video? A little

    10 further on forward, please? I think it goes past the

    11 tree there. At that point, perhaps if we can just

    12 freeze it there?

    13 Now, this is very similar to one of the video

    14 stills that has already been presented to the court; is

    15 that correct?

    16 A. Yes, that's correct.

    17 Q. In this place which is depicted at 15.36, can

    18 you point that out exactly where it is on the map,

    19 where we're seeing the video segment end at 15.36?

    20 A. I marked it on the map and it is here

    21 (indicated).

    22 Q. After we see the scene which has a time

    23 indication of 15.36, at that point, are there any

    24 houses between that location and Negoslavci?

    25 A. No, there are no houses on the road, on the

  143. 1 right or left side of the road, there are no houses.

    2 Q. So Negoslavci is the next village that one

    3 comes to after leaving Vukovar; is that correct?

    4 A. If you continue on the same road, that's

    5 correct.

    6 Q. Which direction is Negoslavci from Vukovar?

    7 A. They're almost directly south.

    8 Q. Now, the next segment, after the one with the

    9 time indication of 15.36, I believe shows a time of

    10 15.42; is that correct?

    11 A. Yes, that's correct.

    12 Q. Now, if we can show the clip, 15.42, please?

    13 (Videotape played)

    14 A. Freeze it, please? A little bit back. More

    15 than that. More. A little bit more. Okay. That's

    16 okay.

    17 Q. What is shown happening in this clip from

    18 15.42? What do we see occurring?

    19 A. As you can see, the buses coming from Vukovar

    20 south on the road, between Vukovar and Negoslavci --

    21 Q. Just to make that absolutely clear. They're

    22 coming from the direction of Vukovar travelling south?

    23 A. Yes, that's correct.

    24 Q. Were you able to determine the location where

    25 this was filmed?

  144. 1 A. Yes, I was.

    2 Q. Would you please indicate on the map exactly

    3 where you determined the segment from 15.42 to have

    4 been filmed?

    5 A. It's here on the map (indicated). I marked

    6 it on the map. I put a label toward that location

    7 depicted as 15.42.

    8 Q. How did you make this determination? Perhaps

    9 if we can go back to the video, it might be helpful.

    10 A. Please. There is a --

    11 Q. You're not going to be able to point to it,

    12 you're just going to have to describe it, I'm afraid,

    13 or perhaps if it would be helpful for you to use the

    14 video still at this point and maybe to point out

    15 certain things.

    16 A. If I may, Your Honours?

    17 Q. I believe the appropriate video still which

    18 matches the photograph, or the part of the video we're

    19 seeing, is Prosecutor's Exhibit 222.

    20 Again, Mr. Dzuro, my question to you is:

    21 What characteristics did you look at which helped you

    22 to determine that the location that we see in the video

    23 at 15.42 is, in fact, the spot that you have marked on

    24 the map?

    25 A. First I will refer to the previous stills.

  145. 1 The building which is on the right side of the road

    2 travelling from Vukovar to Negoslavci, which is the

    3 brick building with the gable facing the road and the

    4 trees in front of it, and then also here, the electric

    5 post, the tree above the buses, the traffic sign in

    6 that location, and the white building, the building is

    7 like a shed (indicated).

    8 Q. Again, perhaps if we can look at Prosecutor's

    9 Exhibit 217, and you just made reference to the house

    10 with the gable facing the front. If you can perhaps

    11 show this on the ELMO and explain what you are talking

    12 about there with the pointer?

    13 Again, if you can point to this, please, and

    14 talk about the characteristics here that helped you to

    15 identify the location?

    16 A. That's the roof of the building with the

    17 gable facing the road and the tree is very close to the

    18 building.

    19 Q. In trying to locate this spot, did you go to

    20 any other locations other than just in Vukovar?

    21 A. Yes, I continued driving to Negoslavci,

    22 Orolik, and Sidski Banovci, and the same thing as I did

    23 in Vukovar, inspected both right and left side of the

    24 road and trying to locate some other building and --

    25 not only the building but the trees, the telephone,

  146. 1 electric posts, which will show me that the location

    2 could be there.

    3 Q. In doing this, in going to Negoslavci and

    4 Orolik and up and down this road between Vukovar, did

    5 you find any other location where all of these

    6 combination of factors were present?

    7 A. No, I didn't find any. There is none.

    8 Q. In fact, as you went through Negoslavci, what

    9 did you find to be different or distinctive to

    10 Negoslavci that we do not see in this film segment?

    11 A. It will be possible to see it on the video

    12 that I made, but in general terms, in the area on the

    13 right and left side of the road, there is a distinctive

    14 ditch with reinforced bridges for the driveways. Also,

    15 the buildings are much further down, set much further

    16 down from the road, and then there were trees in a big

    17 part of Negoslavci, evergreen trees mixed with the leaf

    18 trees, which also doesn't appear on this picture,

    19 electric lines which are connected to the roofs of the

    20 buildings which again, on this building, you can't see

    21 that.

    22 Q. Mr. Dzuro, let me ask you: If one is

    23 travelling south from Vukovar in the direction of

    24 Negoslavci at the location depicted at 15.36, is it

    25 possible to get to the location depicted at 15.42

  147. 1 without making any stops, turns, or changes in

    2 direction?

    3 A. No, it's impossible.

    4 Q. In fact, it requires a complete reversal of

    5 direction, a 180-degree turn, does it not?

    6 A. Yes, that's correct.

    7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honours, it's 5.00

    8 now. We do have a fair amount of testimony still left,

    9 so perhaps this would be a good breaking point.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. All right. So we

    11 adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow at 10.15.

    12 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at

    13 5.00 p.m., to the reconvened on

    14 Thursday, the 18th day of June,

    15 1998, at 10.15 a.m.